Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

The Duke of York wants his daughters to be full time Royals?

918 replies

MidnightVelvetthe7th · 23/10/2016 14:45

www.express.co.uk/news/royal/724136/prince-andrew-requests-princesses-beatrice-eugenie-kensington-prince-charles-queen-william

This is a Sunday Express link, not a Fail one.

So Andrew wants both of his daughters to have full time royal roles funded by the public & have larger apartments at Kensington Palace. Given that the only time I ever see them in the news is for dreadful outfits & holidays, to me they are embarrassing & a bit cringy.

Andrew is complaining that they are overshadowed by William, Catherine & Harry. But if you believe & support a system of privilege by birth such as the monarchy, then it stands to reason that the direct heirs are more important than the rest.

Does Andrew have a point & IABU?!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
Roussette · 01/11/2016 10:41

saved I can reverse that. Should we only believe the bad things out there which is usually reported to sell newspapers and doesn't have an iota of truth?

I imagine someone looks after his military uniforms or whatever you call them. It probably comes from that.

raisedbyguineapigs · 01/11/2016 11:09

The issue for me is the institution, not the people although I will make an exception for Prince Andrew

As well as the issues with living in a modern democracy where we want people achieving on merit and hard work when our representatives achievements are finding a Royal womb to be born out of. It can't be good for people to live a life where they cannot choose their own paths, are discouraged from making their own decisions, have no concept of having to work for anything or want for anything and have people bowing and scraping to them all the time for no apparent reason. They can't choose not to be in the public eye or not to have their children in the papers. Yet they are expected to trot around the world representing the UK. Is that really what we want? For them or us?

Peregrina · 01/11/2016 11:53

They can't choose not to be in the public eye or not to have their children in the papers.

To a certain extent they can. The Duchess of Kent used to be quite high profile and completely dropped out of public life. Ditto with someone like Princess Margaret's daughter - Lady Sarah - she seems to have kept her head down, most of the time.

savedbythebell · 01/11/2016 12:05

Rousette No I don't think that's the case, all the good things that the royals do get reported and get believed, why when something adverse about them is reported do we often get posts like "where did you get that from" or "I find that hard to believe".

It's been well documented over the years from many different sources about prince Charles petty and unreasonable demands on his staff, I have no reason to doubt it. It fits in entirely with his entitled sometimes petulant character.

Roussette · 01/11/2016 12:12

Let's agree to differ saved. Course he's not perfect but I also don't think he is the ogre you are making out to be and after all we're arguing about whether he has his shoelaces ironed here! Grin

chilipepper20 · 01/11/2016 12:15

Why the hell should we pay one family to lives of such opulence.

this basic question has no answer. Especially given the state of public finances, and how low the pay is for useful public staff like nurses and teachers. I am amazed that this institution has survived this long. Kudos to them for working the system that well.

savedbythebell · 01/11/2016 13:13

Ok Rousette., I suppose none of us really know what goes on behind palace doors, but I really do think Charles's servants must have to dance a merry dance, he won't be an easy employer I'm sure of that.

Cosmicglitterghoul · 01/11/2016 13:25

I always thought that I liked the idea of a royal family, found it quaint even. But the older I get the unfathamable I find it. It's so bizarre.

chilipepper20 · 01/11/2016 13:39

I always thought that I liked the idea of a royal family, found it quaint even. But the older I get the unfathamable I find it. It's so bizarre.

I don't think people mind "quaint". But most other quaint things I like don't cost 35m pounds. Seems to be rather high price for nostalgia.

Cosmicglitterghoul · 01/11/2016 13:46

That's it exactly. I hadn't considered it really. That and the fact they are 'better' than the rest of us. Hmm

VenusRising · 01/11/2016 14:20

I think it's important that someone irons shoe laces and newspapers.... if that's what they want to do!

It sort of annoys me that William is so right on, he's middle class.

If he is middle class, what's he doing being a royal?

Charlotte looks like the queen, and seems a lot spunkier than milk sop George.

I wouldn't mind Harry being king, but as the last one. He seems quirky enough to be a toff, not a wet hand wringer with a rescue complex, like his older brother.

Also, didn't the queen mum have a cook as her mother? She was swapped at birth for a bastard her dad had with the French chef. That's why she was called cookie? Still her father's daughter, but not her "mother's" girl. The real daughter died in a nursing home in Ireland.

I like Charles, he's done a lot of interesting things, and while his views seem a bit out there, time seems to be proving him right.

I do think William needs to have some serious therapy. He seems very damaged.

Princess Beatrice and EugenI e have to get a job (each). They've expired and smell very bad. As has Andrew and his wife not wife. Reeking.

Sophie seems to have stepped up to the plate and her profile is all the better for Edward staying out of the limelight. He seems thick as mince. There's only so much of them we can stand. B and E are just past their use by dates. Much better for them if they make like old soldiers and just fade away.
Their entitled and grasping attitudes have such a negative influence and poor reception there is a danger they will prove the straw that breaks the royal's back.

savedbythebell · 01/11/2016 14:34

www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/future-head-of-the-commonwealth-refuses-to-dress-himself-20111028-1mnma.html
I can't see why it's important to have his shoelaces ironed Venus and nobody would want to do it, rather just want to stay in employment however demeaning it may be. Charles is a grown man, he should act like one, instead of expecting his "serfs" to wait on him hand and foot. Who the hell does he think he is.

savedbythebell · 01/11/2016 14:37

Sorry Venus I do realise she now that you weren't being serious. Grin

Roussette · 01/11/2016 15:17

Venus I am Grin at your post and agree!

raisedbyguineapigs · 01/11/2016 15:56

That article demo started exactly what is wrong g with the state of affairs we have. The Australian press is pointing out the ridiculousness of having a Head of the Commonwealth that can't or won't dress himself. When they had a referendum it was almost completely split on age lines, with the older generation voting for the Monarchy and the younger for a republic. I bet they'll be off as soon as the Queen goes.
It's funny when we get reports about Royal visits to the Commonwealth in our press it's almost all positive coverage, yet in those countries themselves, they can be quite critical. Apparently Wills and Kate's trip to Canada wasn't without its protests and some dignitaries refused to attend official events. I don't understand why some countries in the Commonwealth have the Queen as Head of State when some are republics.

Marcipex · 01/11/2016 16:11

VenusRising has just done my head in.
The Queen mother was the child of the family cook? Whaaaat?

Julia2016 · 01/11/2016 16:25

I think the royal PR machine does an excellent job. They are a ridiculous institution on so many levels yet they are revered. That's top PR work in my book.

They show us what they want us to see and some people seem to swallow it.

LikeDylanInTheMovies · 01/11/2016 16:26

Marc its more Chinese whispers. It comes from a book by Lady Colin Campbell about the Queen Mother which is far fetched as a bucket of shite from Timbuktu. It stems from the fact that Wallis Simpson nicknamed her 'Cookie' (in all likelihood a reference to her stout build and love of food) and span an absurd fantasy from that.

QueenoftheAndals · 01/11/2016 16:26

Marcipex, it's an old rumour that the family cook acted as a sort of surrogate as the QM's parents wanted more children but her mother was unable to have them. So her father fathered the QM and her younger brother on the cook. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were aware of this so they nicknamed her Cookie.

Allegedly...

Marcipex · 01/11/2016 16:59

Blimey....thank you both.

savedbythebell · 01/11/2016 17:47

If we HAVE to have a "Royal" family it should be surely a democratically elected one, one we can vote in or out. With all the seedy scandals from Edward, Sophie and Andrew we've had over the years, (I'm sure there's many more but I can't think off hand) they'd have been voted out years ago. Why do we continually pander to one family just because of birth. If you look at it all objectively it really is bizarre.

Temporaryname137 · 01/11/2016 18:43

Jesus Christ, savedbythebell, that's a terrible idea. Not in theory, but in practice, based on what the British public has voted into parliament... Can you imagine how much the vile Blair would love to be King Tony (until his crown was stolen by the evil and deeply unpopular King Gordon).

Prince Boris with his crown like a needle in a haystack, making Prince Philip look like a master of tact and diplomacy.

Little Lord Osborne in the Counting House, counting all his money.

Duke Clegg, shackled and helpless, railing impotently against the rest of them.

Princess Abbott, using her position and privilege to advance her family, whilst telling us commoners that we should never do that.

At least illegitimate son Farage will always be outside the palace gates with his nose pressed up against them, I suppose!

EdithSitwell · 01/11/2016 18:43

I think Lady C's claim that the family's cook acted as a surrogate because the Earl and Countess of Strathmore wanted more children is unlikely. The QM was the ninth of ten children. Her parents had children aplenty!

savedbythebell · 01/11/2016 19:17

It might seem a bit silly Temporyname but not nearly as silly as what we have now. Why would it be so wrong to vote a nice deserving family to be the "Royal family" for a few years. It'd be nothing like what we vote into parliament, I'm talking about a nice deserving family, not a few lying MPs.

I admit it sounds a bit crazy but not nearly as crazy as having the same old family forever. Let's throw a few million and a few palaces at some other family for a change. The more I think about the idea the more I like it. Smile

VanillaSugarCandyCanes · 01/11/2016 19:44

The public are not to be trusted with the vote. Look what an arse they made of the [redacted].

Swipe left for the next trending thread