Active discussions

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

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be edging towards an anti-Monarchy position purely because of the Cambridges?

355 replies

Buxhoeveden · 17/08/2015 07:29

As a couple they are starting to grate.

Is it too early to focus on them?

OP posts:
NotYouNaanBread · 17/08/2015 09:53

The spitefulness, including on this thread, about the Middletons never ceases to amaze me.

I suppose people would prefer it if W had found himself a modest virgin in a run-down cottage in hills of Yorkshire somewhere, and kept her at home, perhaps weaving? And maybe her parents could pull their forelocks at the rest of the royals from the back of the church at the wedding, and speak in respectful tones of their gratitude?

God forbid that she should have well-off middle class parents who are treated with respect and generally welcomed into the rather unusual life and family of their new son-in-law.

There was a brief flurry of interest in Pippa, but she seems to have fallen off the radar in the last few years, probably at her own instigation (or request from her sister, maybe), and 99% of the press mention of Carole Middleton seems to be rooted firmly in spite and jealousy at her "access" to her daughter and grandchildren.

"Dear MUA, AIBU? I've just had my 2nd baby in 2 years, and have just moved house. DH has an unusual job (don't want to out myself here) and works away a lot and his family are a bit distant - we never see my PIL. My Mum has come to stay and is helping me manage my - admittedly large - house, and has been great at getting the shopping in and generally making things nice for me. AIBU to wonder why she is now the most bitched-about woman in the fucking country?"

The concept of the monarch is a bit dated and irrelevant, but I'm not British, so each to their own. But the attitude towards the Middletons is horrible.

Sansarya · 17/08/2015 09:53

And all their other assets?

ApocalypseThen · 17/08/2015 09:54

I like the idea that there are countries without a rich history (I'd be most interested to get an example - I really want to go there) and that without a royal family you'd cease to have one.

SuperFlyHigh · 17/08/2015 09:54

NotYou - Kate is that you?! Grin

LittleBearPad · 17/08/2015 09:55

Yes SuperFly I do.

I said The Queen is half British by descent, William's mother was definitely British.

If you wish to be picky Charles and his siblings are three-quarters German by descent. William is three-eighths German by descent. George is three-16ths German by descent. Is he sufficiently British for you?

My point still stands however about racism.

BooChunky · 17/08/2015 09:57

Apocalypse, what I meant was that whereas people will primarily visit Florida for theme parks, Spain for beaches (I'm generalising obviously), most of our tourism is more historical and a lot has to do with the Royals, past and present. Do you disagree??

achieve6 · 17/08/2015 09:58

OP, you ask "I suppose the question is what is it legitimate to base one's views about the Monarchy ON?"

by mere bloodline, they have status, privilege, live on taxpayer money and live a life of Riley at that, with the odd official engagement. because of their bloodline. Which leads back to...yet more ordinary human beings.

I'd make a decision based on that.

BoboChic · 17/08/2015 09:58

Maternity leave from royal engagements. Read the newspaper if you don't understand.

Griphook · 17/08/2015 09:59

All that history and culture and sense of duty from past monarchs is slowly being undermined by a self interested couple.

I feel sorry for the queen

BoboChic · 17/08/2015 10:01

Diana was the wife of the heir to the throne. Kate is the wife of the second in line. She is therefore much less important than Diana was and should have a lesser public role and profile.

LittleBearPad · 17/08/2015 10:02

What sense of duty? It's only in the later 20th century that such a sense developed from approximately George V onwards; Edward VIII being a notable exception.

SuperFlyHigh · 17/08/2015 10:03

Little yes I do wish to be picky...

How was I racist?!

I think generally we should go down the Dutch/Belgian/Swedish route where the RF are integrated into normal society and not treated as cherished vessels.

Kate in particular comes across as so bloody smug from the way she dresses her kids in the old fashioned way to just the way she acts with children in charity. UGH

Binit · 17/08/2015 10:03

I am no monarchist but neither of the Cambridges have ever put a foot out of line IMO. People love them the world over and they definitely attract tourists.

I don't envy them a bit. Their lives are under constant scrutiny and I'm grateful they do their jobs and attract visitors and money to the UK.

NotYouNaanBread · 17/08/2015 10:05

SuperFlyHigh Wink

SirChenjin · 17/08/2015 10:06

Oh I understand bobo - which is precisely why I questionned what she was on maternity leave from.

AlbrechtDurer · 17/08/2015 10:06

What sense of duty? It's only in the later 20th century that such a sense developed from approximately George V onwards; Edward VIII being a notable exception.
The Queen has fulfilled the role of a constitutional monarch in an absolutely exemplary fashion. She has also been on the throne for a very long time (next month it will be for longer than Victoria's reign). So, for many people, she is the only frame of reference that they have for what a royal should be. I think it's inevitable that, once she dies, people are going to become more disappointed and disillusioned with the royal family.

BoboChic · 17/08/2015 10:09

Royal duty is a job like any other. There are loads of jobs one might not approve of - but they are still jobs.

Kate's striving for perfection leaves her open to accusations of smugness. She tries very, very hard - and by and large succeeds, albeit with a lot of support. Give her a break - someone had to fill the role of William's wife and she's a hell of a lot better than most.

LittleBearPad · 17/08/2015 10:10

By defining their nationality purely by their genealogy rather than their place of birth as explained above.

But as you can see I do know my history.

Toooldtobearsed · 17/08/2015 10:14

I do not have strong feelings about the Monarchy one way or the other, but some of the posts in this thread are ridiculous.

Firstly, to question the Britishness of the Royal Family is deeply insulting to any immigrants, and children of immigrants living here in the UK. Would you really point out that your next door neighbour, born and bred in England is not really British because her grandfather hailed from the West Indies? Really?

Secondly, they generate a huge income for the country from tourism, something like four times more than the taxpayer pays to them.

Thirdly, I think it is great that William and Harry actually do a job. Yes, they got to pick what and where, but far better that than doing the rounds of factories, shaking hands and trying to look interested. And as for Kate, hands up all you SAHM's? One rule for you and another for her?

As I say, not arsed one way or another about them personally, but the thread reads like 'see a bandwagon? Let's all jump on it'.

Griphook · 17/08/2015 10:17

Has Catherine or her team ever suggested she is a stay at home mum? Isn't that just an assumption due to the lack of work she does.

you could reasonable conclude that William is a stay at home dad aswell

ApocalypseThen · 17/08/2015 10:18

Do you disagree??

Well, being a filthy foreigner who has visited the UK myself, I can't say that royalty was any pull factor or formed any part of the trip. I'd say if seeing royal things was your incentive for a trip to the UK, it'd be short and dull.

I find that opinion of royalty is common in the UK but I don't understand the massive insecurity that underpins it. Nobody goes to France specifically for Versailles. There's a lot more to the UK than the homes of some dysfunctional baldy old bores. And even the bits of the UK connected with them would still exist as tourist attractions if you didn't have to kick in your daily 67p to keep them in holidays.

glasgowmistybluegirl · 17/08/2015 10:19

I agree EponasWildDaughter, why do they receive so much cash, it's all so archaic the whole Royal thing, whatever Royal means??

LittleBearPad · 17/08/2015 10:21

It's an annual 67p not a daily one.

Tenieht · 17/08/2015 10:26

I'm seriously edging towards republicanism due to the new generation , lazy Kate and the use the media when it suits us PR slant of this generation. I love the queen and am a massive supporter of her, but have really turned against the younger lot

cardibach · 17/08/2015 10:26

pineapple would you like to provide some evidence for this statement: Even your own children your only agreeing to care for and they can be taken to? (Taken to where, by the way? Sorry couldn't resist!)
I really don't get the tourism thing. If tourists come with an interest in history they will want to see the castles and houses. They have very little chance of seeing actual royals...surely they would still come, as people still visit Versailles and the Russian palaces, for example.