Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
rabbitstew · 04/08/2015 11:18

It all depends on the person, really...

Tenieht · 04/08/2015 11:19

People should read and digest BoffinMums post unthread as it is so true. The image and the reality are so different and this is all about preserving untold wealth, influence and power. When I worked in the City of London overlooking the Mansion House and Bank of England for sever years I lost count of the number of times and incredible frequency with which the Queen and Philip would be dropped off by a chauffeur driven car, not the state glamour coaches or limos, for obviously private appointments. People are very naive to think it's all opening supermarkets and clutching flowers. There's large andlargely hidden from view business dealings which the Queen takes an active part in. Yes of course they are allowed private wealth but their constitutional position means more questions should be asked. People are very naive.

LazyLohan · 04/08/2015 11:23

Well, yes, there is a causal link between people having the right to bear arms and people using arms to kill people.

And the problem with other gun control measures is that they are often futile as they can be challenged as unconstitutional.

It takes a 2/3 majority in both houses to change the constitution. So it's hard to change. Support for gun control is actually higher than opposition to the death penalty is in this country. But we still don't have the death penalty because our system of legislation is more flexible and isn't as hamstrung to public opinion and doesn't need a near consensus to change.

keepitsimple0 · 04/08/2015 11:24

Sorry, I don't have a problem with the Queen being born to her position. I don't see why that is intrinsically evil in a way that a ruthless, unpleasant person getting themselves into a privileged position isn't.

Well, if you don't have a problem with it, welcome to 15 century feudalism. I guess it was much worse in the day before the Magna Carta.

we can stop a ruthless person from becoming the PM. we can't stop one from becoming King. it's quite simple. We have say over who becomes PM.

keepitsimple0 · 04/08/2015 11:28

Support for gun control is actually higher than opposition to the death penalty is in this country.

Support for some gun control is high. Support for repealing the second amendment is low. There are various measure entirely compatible with the second amendment that don't go through (extensive background checks, waiting periods) because of pressure from interest groups.

Orrery · 04/08/2015 12:26

I'm so confused as to what to think of the Royal Family! On the one hand, yes they are all extremely privileged, seemingly for very little purpose or from very little in the way of hard graft and I'm not particularly impressed by them simply having vast wealth and opportunities that many of us don't have by birthright - that to me isn't newsworthy.

But on the other hand, I would absolutely HATE to have to live my life in the spotlight and be forced into an annual calendar of events year in year out as the Queen is, and if they can step up to the plate and take that kind of bullshit day in day out, then they have talents that I don't - maybe dealing with the publicity and the judgement and the responsibility is the 'work' that they have to do, the energy they have to spend equivalent to our daily grind.

But this modern generation of monarchy - taking the inherited privileges but somehow still wanting the opportunities granted to ordinary folks - is really confusing!! Llike William having an air ambulance job that a civilian pilot could have had, and then giving his salary away to charity because he doesn't need it in a time when many families are struggling and need employment.... and George enjoying all the privilege of inherited sovereignty, but also having a very private life..... and Kate having her wedding dress designed by a top designer for her own wedding, but buying her clothes for ordinary 'civilian events' from high street shops and in doing so making high street brands more expensive for all of us!

It's sort of having it both ways and it irks me, they seem to want to 'muck in' with ordinary people but they are doing it courtesy of the extraordinary resources of monarchy, which strikes me as bloody cheating!!!

rabbitstew · 04/08/2015 12:46

Yes, of course there is a lot going on behind the scenes. Without doubt a family that rich and privileged has the same sort of open-secret power that all rich and privileged families have. Getting rid of the Royal Family will not remove that sort of behaviour, because there will always be someone to brown-nose to. You only have to look at the USA to understand that: no Royal Family, but colossal amounts of behind the scenes bargains to be had if you are one of the few. You could also look at Russia. No monarchy does not equal the end to any of that. If the City likes to invite the Queen over for tea, then the City is the problem, too... we can't even get rid of the corrupt bankers, though - they cling on to power without having to do any of the public duties.

rabbitstew · 04/08/2015 12:47

And it would appear that we CAN'T stop a ruthless person becoming PM. Name a Prime Minister that hasn't been ruthless...

BertrandRussell · 04/08/2015 13:04

And the Queen as Head of State could rein back a ruthless prime minister exactly how?

rabbitstew · 04/08/2015 13:25

And anyone as Head of State could rein back a ruthless prime minister exactly how? You don't become Prime Minister by yourself - you have a cohort of ruthless backers protecting you. Anyone getting rid of you has to have a cohort of equally ruthless backers. None of them are really that interested in what the electorate thinks, only what they think. The electorate does not tell them what to think, they tell the electorate what they want them to know and then tell them to vote for them, warts and all (without actually telling the truth about the warts). You either have to join in and vote, or disenfranchise yourself. As a voter, you don't get to control people who are ruthless and single minded and intent on power and who have got themselves a powerful gang together.

rabbitstew · 04/08/2015 13:28

Anyway, this is all a bit schizophrenic - apparently the Royal Family is both too powerful and not powerful enough; we could scrap them and not replace them and yet we need something to replace them with to keep our elected leaders under control.

rabbitstew · 04/08/2015 13:29

And then some people believe that our elected leaders are just puppets, anyway.

rabbitstew · 04/08/2015 13:33

I'm not convinced, if our leaders are puppets, that it's the Royal Family controlling them.

Pennybun4 · 04/08/2015 13:39

She is not a Princess (though behaves as if she is). She is a Countess and that only through who she is married to.

It is not news. Congrats though to OP - that to me is proper news.

BoffinMum · 04/08/2015 14:15

Personally speaking I think a monarchy brings with it a sense of stability and continuity, so I am not keen to see it removed wholesale. I am also sympathetic to the difficulties of growing up in the public eye because of who one's parents might be, and I am not alone here, nor was I alone in thinking this as an (albeit lowly) celebrity news journalist. However I am keen to see the royal family's modernisation project become considerably more radical. I see this as including;

Paying the same tax as everyone else.
Using state schools and NHS healthcare more frequently.
Using public transport reasonably routinely.
Holding proper jobs more frequently.
Reduced civil list income, leading in turn to reduced media attention and reduced security requirements (the latter being invoked far too frequently in too many situations, like the mobile phone blocking).

And finally

Donating the proceeds of the Duchy of Cornwall to, well, Cornwall.

Indeed I would apply these things to all British residents. We need to mingle more to have a shared sense of values and citizenship. To hammer the royal family for taking paid jobs/using the NHS/sending their children to state schools is unhelpful, as if we believe in equality, and fairness, they need to have the same rights and responsibilities as the rest of us. In this way they can set an example to those members of society that seek a more polarised country with the many serving the few and privilege heavily protected by a veritable fortress of private connections.

That is a long winded way of saying 'noblesse oblige'. And a 21st century monarchy is, in my opinion, do-able, but not in the direction Clarence House is pushing things. Charles is frankly almost Edwardian in his attitudes and this needs to be dealt with otherwise he is likely to be our final monarch.

elizadolittlechoc · 04/08/2015 14:19

Thanks, Pennybun. My original post was a knee-jerk reaction to the Beeb highlighting this story on Sunday, when there are far more important issues in the world, and see my later post, how it was then subtly changed yesterday (due to this thread, obviously!). The Beeb's psychophanticism towards the monarchy seems to swing equally to it's far left reporting on other issues at times; trying to show it is all things to all license payers perhaps. Agree with Orrery and I'm not sure tourists would stop flocking to see our sights if we became a Republic. Look at the Pyramids Confused.

OP posts:
BoffinMum · 04/08/2015 14:26

To be fair it would be cool to still have dramatically dressed Pharoahs.

Bambambini · 04/08/2015 17:45

I'm not a royalist, don't really mind them after mellowing in my old age and wouln't shed a tear if they were given the chop - but, theyvdo fill the white space and give us something to yak about.

StitchingMoss · 04/08/2015 23:04

BoffinMum, if you think Charles not changing will mean he is our final monarch then I'll be praying every day to a god I don't believe in that he doesn't change!

What makes me laugh is the number of royalists I know who say, "oh, but we don't want Charles, we want William to take over instead".

Er, the whole point of a hereditary monarchy is that you don't get to choose!

DopeyDawg · 04/08/2015 23:24

I did see a piece in the Daily Fail a few weeks ago claiming that wee Prince George had already 'contributed £200K to the economy' and I thought WTAF? How do they work THAT out? Confused

keepitsimple0 · 05/08/2015 11:31

Er, the whole point of a hereditary monarchy is that you don't get to choose!

indeed, monarchists are a strange bunch.

I few people above have stated they don't mind the hereditary nature of the monarch (again, one of life's major mysteries), but we will no doubt see support for the monarchy drop when Charles comes in.

Which of course doesn't make sense. If you aren't opposed to hereditary positions, you surely must know you have to take what's given.

StarlingMurmuration · 05/08/2015 11:39

Actually she's a Duchess, not a Countess. Because she's married to a Duke. If William were an Earl, she'd be a Countess.

Downtheroadfirstonleft · 05/08/2015 11:46

Add message | Report | Message poster Pennybun4 Tue 04-Aug-15 13:39:37
"She is not a Princess (though behaves as if she is). She is a Countess and that only through who she is married to."

Intrigued. How does a princess behave and how does that differ from that of a countess (or indeed duchess)?

tarashill · 05/08/2015 11:48

I agree Keepitsimple0
Just imagine if years from now, William is on the throne but he's a alcoholic, womanising, wife beater. Wonder what the monarchists take on that would be. That's how bloody ludicrous it all is.

BoffinMum · 05/08/2015 12:00

Stitching, oh but we do choose, just not very obviously. We pretty much got rid of Edward VIII indirectly Wink