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:
LazyLouLou · 03/08/2015 16:16

Because, as your last sentence shows, you are misreading me. OK, I should have added a smiley face, but I thought that, and my understanding of the different forms of republics, was obvious from the post as a whole.

But mainly because your response to my posting seem, to me, to be a list of non sequiturs. Probably just another one of those "It's a forum, it doesn't read how you thought it" moments. But in chopping up my posts to interrogate each sentence you have missed a couple of overall meanings. I know how that works, I do it myself, so I know how easy it is to do.

BertrandRussell · 03/08/2015 16:18

"T, a) is a bit odd. Someone's got to be in charge. How would we know who to blame if there wasn't a figurehead?"
Why not just have an elected Prime Minister? Why do we need a Head of State as well?

keepitsimple0 · 03/08/2015 16:20

@LLL

that doesn't clarify it, but that's fine. I specifically responded to you conflating funding for the monarchy with welfare, which you clearly did.

LazyLouLou · 03/08/2015 16:34

I don't know, BT. Which is why I would want a full explanation and referendum on the possibilities. There must be good example out there. There is nothing to say that, after a lot of full disclosure and education of all who want to know, we shouldn't decide to make up our own version of democratic republicanism.

KIS And I did explain that I was not doing that. Just pointing out that your opinion may sound good to you when applied to royalty, but is not so nice when applied to people at the other end of the financial spectrum. That you don't think that our benefit system is a privilege does not make it so.

rabbitstew · 03/08/2015 16:50

keepitsimple - sorry, I'm confused. Some people on here would clearly like to get rid of the monarchy, and I can see why they might want to do that, but why get rid of something that isn't corrupt when you haven't got a plan in place for a sensible alternative? I would rather land and palaces were owned and maintained by an incorrupt monarchy than turned over to a Ceaucescu-like alternative, or indeed to David Cameron, or "the nation" when there is no agreement within "the nation" on what we should do with them. Surely those who don't want a monarchy have some kind of idea what the alternative should be like? And to what extent we need any of the functions currently fulfilled by Royals continued? Why not make the alternatives sound more appealing, rather than focus all the effort on trying to convince others that the status quo is so awful that anything would be better?

BertrandRussell · 03/08/2015 17:04

"Why get rid of something that isn't corrupt when you haven't got a plan in place for a sensible alternative?"

Might I introduce you to Prince Andrew?

StitchingMoss · 03/08/2015 17:41

LazyLou, I do do something constructive - I'm a member of Republic and campaign for change.

Your argument about fairness is bizarre - of course life isn't fair (patronising!!) but that doesn't mean you should do nothing to change it. If we all just sat back and said "ah well, that's life" we'd still be sticking kids down coal mines and up chimneys.

For social change to happen we need to make it happen, not just meekly accept the crap we're fed by the royals PR machine and it's ilk.

And as for a viable alternative - Ireland has an excellent VFM presidential system which would not be hard to copy at all.

Don't even start me on the corruption - you don't need to look as far as Andrew, Charles has some major history on abusing his power to get what he wants.

tarashill · 03/08/2015 18:12

Why get rid of something that isn't corrupt when you haven't got a plan in place for a sensible alternative?
You either have a short memory or a very selective one.
But regarding a sensible alternative? a presidency run on the lines of Ireland's wouldn't be bad. Far more sensible to have someone elected as head of state. Alternatively there is nothing that says we have to have a presidency, we could get by fine with just a prime minister.

rabbitstew · 03/08/2015 18:53

Sorry, I still don't understand. So some of you do think that our monarchical system is more corrupt than other systems? Or do you think that corruption has nothing to do with it, as per keepitsimple? And, if the Irish system is better, how does it work and what makes it better than other examples? I know nothing about the Irish political system. And what would the Irish system do to the land and palaces that would presumably be confiscated from our existing monarchy? We have to do something about what we've already got, it can't just disappear in a puff of smoke. Would they become like the Duke of Westminster, and hugely wealthy and powerful without having to do any of the handshaking? Or would change have to include confiscating property from other titled families, too?

rabbitstew · 03/08/2015 18:54

Or should the state own and control all land and nobody be a home or land owner?

ComposHatComesBack · 03/08/2015 19:31

Why get rid of something that isn't corrupt

The incumbent monarch doesn't seem to be corrupt, bit yhst is a sheer luck rather than the system being incorruptible. If she'd been as dodgy as fuck it wouldn't have prevented her from being monarch. If an elected official is abusing their office, they can be voted out. A monarch you're stuck with.

Charles is an absolute case in point, using his privileged position to lobby ministers about his own private interests. If a president was found doing thst they'd have to resign or be voted out at the next presidential election, yet we are stuck with Charles as our next head of state.

tarashill · 03/08/2015 19:44

The Irish system works because it doesn't cost fortunes, much cheaper to run than the monarchy. As for what we would do with the royal palaces? open them to the public, tourists would flock to them. I can't see how it could be a problem. The Louvre in Paris used to be a royal palace, now it's the most visited art museum in the world. How ludicrous that the massive Buckingham palace and all the rest of the numerous palaces are there fully maintained by the taxpayer for just one family.

rabbitstew · 03/08/2015 20:26

Yes, but what about the Duke of Westminster? It hardly seems fair to confiscate the possessions of just the reigning monarch and her closest family and not do anything about the rest of them. Besides which, isn't it a massive waste of space to turn all those palaces into museums rather than flats?...

If elected democracies around the world were more successful at rooting out corruption, preventing abuses of power and following the will of the people (as though all the people have the same will...), then it would be a good argument, but honestly - Berlusconi was head of Italy for years, and you only have to look at some of the former Presidents of the US to know that "democracy" doesn't always prevent deep corruption, corrupt people remaining in power, and pigs with their snouts in the trough running the country. Our current Prime Minister appears to be in power because too many people wanted too many different things, with only a tiny minority actively wanting him in power. Lots of people woke up on the morning of the election and wondered what on earth had happened - including the Tory party. The monarchy is about the only part of our "democracy" that appears to jump to anyone's tune - and unfortunately, that tune is the tune of our media, stuffed full of people who are most definitely unelected.

rabbitstew · 03/08/2015 20:27

(morning after the election...)

Egosumquisum · 03/08/2015 20:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

rabbitstew · 03/08/2015 20:38

That and a genuine lack of belief that an alternative would be any better. Why rock the boat for just different?

Egosumquisum · 03/08/2015 20:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

rabbitstew · 03/08/2015 20:44

Doesn't seem like democracy to me - to be ruled by someone who got in as a result of apathy.

RonaldMcDonald · 03/08/2015 20:44

Blah blah rich wife does rich wife type things
Hold the front page

This is not news yanbu

StitchingMoss · 03/08/2015 20:45

Turn them into flats then rabbit? Couldn't really give a stuff tbh.

Democracy is not perfect but it's a damn sight better than a hereditary monarchy - we got rid of the hereditary peers for the reason that inheriting power is bullshit, yet conveniently forgot that the monarchy does the same thing.

Charles abuses his power constantly and he's not even king yet - god knows how bad he'll be when he is!!

Why shouldn't my DC get the chance to be head of state, or yours?

It's a crazy anachronistic system and beyond belief that we're still stuck with it.

The problem with our current system of democracy is we don't have PR, but that's a whole other debate!

rabbitstew · 03/08/2015 20:47

Apathy and indifference - ensure that there will always be an establishment. At least this country doesn't pretend otherwise.

rabbitstew · 03/08/2015 20:48

But whether or not we have PR is NOT another debate - it's part of the same debate on democracy and how that is best achieved.

Egosumquisum · 03/08/2015 20:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

rabbitstew · 03/08/2015 20:50

Seems odd you couldn't give a stuff about what to do after you've got rid of the monarchy, StitchingMoss. Just chucking out one regime with no clear plans on what to replace it with is not my idea of a good plan. It didn't seem to work in Zimbabwe.

rabbitstew · 03/08/2015 20:52

Egosumquisum - why would anyone want to vote for someone who opens Parliament and reads speeches? What part of the monarch's role needs an electorate to vote for it?

Swipe left for the next trending thread