AIBU to loathe the Royal Family

[InWinoVeritas]

The way the media is so gushing about everything Wills, Kate and Harry do, just been watching the evening news, there is a story about Wills and Kate doing a radio broadcast, makes me want to vomit..
And the issues about mental health - really? Do we need Royal 'endorsement' just to get more funding?

'It is VERY lonely behind those walls and I don't envy them….I feel sorry for them' - I can't feel sorry for such immensely privileged people; not saying they don't have hard times like all of us but they are NOT among life's victims.

'I think their current popularity speaks for itself' - evidence please that they are popular? Public opinion can change really fast and opinion polls are unreliable.

'I love the Queen' - WHY? I can understand respecting her - I have respect for her myself; but 'love' somebody you don't know? Do you really think it is reciprocated?

'A lot of countries are envious of our royal family' - evidence please.

'I can't stand Charles and Camilla' - too bad. In a monarchy you get whoever is next in line whatever they are like, that's the whole point of it. It is only a matter of time before we get a truly dreadful monarch again.

'William and Kate are modernising the royal family, and appear to understand the importance of bringing it into the 21st century' - despite their best intentions the monarchy is incompatible with the 21st century.

I am on the fence about royalty but what they have done for mental health awareness can only be applauded. Whether you like them or not they are very influential and are using that role responsibly in this case. They are also much more real and approachable than previous generations.

I don't really like the institution and many of the things that are done by others in their interests (and their own) but I think some of the royals, as individuals, are okay and likeable.

Not to mention the fact that Harry and will lost their mum at a very young age, they've also had a pretty unique upbringing which won't have always been nice because they've never known the simple life, like riding your scooter down to the local shop, or going to the park with your friends, or just eating findus pancakes round your friends house for tea after cubs.
I know they've had endless amounts of money, but they must wonder what it's like to be 'normal' and not live on their Truman show of a life.
They could put their feet up and live off the money they have, instead they're trying to do something, and show they care and you can't resent them for that, it's more then a lot of rich silver spoon folk do.

living None of that is really tangible. The money we spend on Royal security and Royal visits and palaces would still be spent as it is now. The palaces are already opened up, apart from Balmoral and Sandringham. They would still have to be maintained and repaired.

Also, are we replacing them with a president? They will cost money too. Many not as much if we are lucky but still a big chunk. Are they going to live in one of the old palaces?

Finally, do you really think the government will actually divert any of that money to the homeless? They are deliberately underfunding services at the moment. I would suspect that slowly, over the course of the decades, all the old crown estates will be sold off to private equity 'friends' of the current government- like the bloody Royal Mail and Channel Tunnel sell offs. The list is endless of national assets sold off for a song to minister's mates.

Nothing will change for the poor if the monarchy goes. Nothing. Because the social inequality doesn't emanate from the halls of Buckingham Palace but from the chambers in Westminister.

DonaldStott for president!

I wonder if Kate is on mn (bet she is). Would love to know if she's posted on this thread!

Can I just say, I have huge respect and admiration for Zara Tindall was Phillips. There's a top girl, right there!

The money we spend on Royal security and Royal visits and palaces would still be spent as it is now.

Why would it be? If the royals became private citizens, their security would be their own concern to fund. Council tax would no longer need to fund the extra policing, road closures, planning etc around royal visits. The queen's last visit to Leicester cost the city council £185,000 pounds at a time when the numbers of people sleeping rough on the city's streets are the highest since records started being kept.

Any abolition of the monarchy would have to involve decisions on what happened to royal palaces, sure. I assume it would make sense for an elected head of state to live in central London for his/her term of office, so Buckingham Palace is an obvious spot.

Our research shows that the Queen is by some way the most expensive Head of State of her type in Europe. The enormous size of the disparity – the cost of the British monarchy is more than 29 times that of the Austrian president, for example – raises serious questions about the value for money that taxpayers receive from their Head of State.

I can't cut and paste the table from this study --

www.republic.org.uk/sites/default/files/royalexpenses.pdf

but the Irish presidency costs £2 million pounds per year according to it, while other monarchies are much, much cheaper than the UK -- Spain (£8 million), the Netherlands (£40 million), Denmark (£13 million). Compared to £176 million for the Queen. All figures excluding security and use of state buildings.

Poor value for money seems to be the unavoidable, even if you support the idea of a monarchy.

If it is not more 'tangible' Nanny, that is due to the secrecy that surrounds the Royal Family who have recently been described as 'more secretive than MI5'. They are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and their finances are not subject to the scrutiny required for any other public spending.

So nobody really knows exactly what they cost, we just know the costs are huge. Yes I know that a republican system will still cost money but it is unlikely to be anything like as expensive as maintaining the Royals including all their hangers on and distant relatives, in numerous palaces and 'grace and favour' accommodation and literally 1000s of staff…..together with travel, security etc.

Yes the buildings will still require maintenance/security etc but they could be open all year round and thereby actually generate a profit….attracting more tourists (no evidence that the royals themselves generate tourism btw) and ensuring that we have access to the artworks etc contained in them which we actually own.

I don't agree that nothing will change for the underprivileged if the monarchy goes; I think everything will change. I feel that the monarchy is blocking much needed reform in this country. It epitomises the entrenchment of the class system with its associated ludicrous expenditure and perks while millions (and growing) live in poverty.

It represents a power structure based on inherited privilege, where one's position in society is determined by birth rather than hard work, talent or democratic mandate. There is a growing gap between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' in this country. Dissent about monarchy is actively suppressed….so we end up discussing the social problems we have so never address the 'elephant in the room'.

The issues with the government underfunding public services are an entirely separate concern….however unlike the monarchy which we have no say over, it is in our power to change that through who we vote for, we will have an opportunity in a few weeks' time.

I find it hard to understand how anyone who is indignant about the way some underprivileged people are being treated by this government, can justify spending money on the royals at a time when public spending is being cut everywhere else. I also find it hard to understand how the royals themselves can accept the money with straight faces.

I wonder if Kate is on mn (bet she is). Would love to know if she's posted on this thread!

Apparently she is.

www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/kate-middleton-has-secret-mumsnet-10201672

I respect them talking about mental health - and by doing so making the general population talk about it. Which while not getting more money now - will do in the long term. And could even help some individuals to talk about and acknowledge their problems earlier - and to be met by a more positive and supportive response.
We need to treat mental illness as any other illness - something people need help for.

But the boys are also following their mother's example - despite her issues she did hug aids victims and publicise the devastation of land mines.

Kate is not on MN. Carole her mom, used to be in MN.
Please don't ask me how I know-

Oh WallisofWindsor..you're nowt but a tease! You know you want to tell us!

Also, are we replacing them with a president? They will cost money too. Many not as much if we are lucky but still a big chunk. Are they going to live in one of the old palaces?

I find it odd in these penny pinching times, the one group that escapes scrutiny is the royals. The NHS isn't spared from cuts because we can't think of anything better to do with the money, but somehow the idea that the money saved from cutting off the monarchy needs to first be justified with better spending is entertained. Why? We really have to justify not giving one of the wealthiest families in the country more money? Frankly I can't think of worse ways to spend our money. I would prefer to give fatcat bankers a tax break than to give those people money.

I'll have to admit I am in awe at them though. How such a wealthy family can elicit the sympathy and good will from a much poorer population, and convince them to give them more wealth and comfort is impressive. Kudos to them. It is after all their main achievement.

I'll have to admit I am in awe at them though. How such a wealthy family can elicit the sympathy and good will from a much poorer population, and convince them to give them more wealth and comfort is impressive.

Yes, that's exactly it. It's fascinating. To me it reads particularly strangely on an internet forum where so many posts are dealing with childcare costs, with outright poverty, people trying to access therapy/specialist help for ill or vulnerable children without the money to go private, or from women afraid to leave unhappy or abusive relationships because of having no money and nowhere to go.

To go from that into posters vociferously defending people for whom none of those things will ever be a problem, purely because of their bloodline and to hear them insisting they're just like the rest of us, and that anyone with a problem with the monarchy is 'jealous'! is very odd.

I'm lucky enough to have enough to live on at the moment, but damn right, if I was struggling to make my rent, or hoping the school shoes could be made to last out the summer term because there was nothing to spare, or unable to pay for therapy for a suicidal teenager who is facing a six-month wait on the NHS, damn right I'd be 'jealous' and angry. What's interesting is why more people aren't.

Would any of the pro-royalists on the thread care to explain why (leaving aside entirely whether the abolition of the monarchy would help social equality) poor people who are struggling to make ends meet don't get angrier about unearned privilege? Genuine question - I'm not being sarky.

livingtothefull
Great post.

Having experience of royal visits, I can tell you most people have no
Idea what expense goes in to hosting a visit that might last minutes - policing, security checks days before, new painting of areas they 'might' see, new toilets they 'might use', new red carpeting, re routing of traffic and a whole host of sycophants on standby to ensure the public don't 'talk too much'. (meanwhile in the real world the unseen areas stay under resourced and shabby). Heaven forbid you offer a view at odds with Charles'thinking or perish the thought you question Andrew or Edwards value to the project (blistering arrogance awaits), or mercy - be on the receiving end of Philips crass racist or socially unacceptable remarks (the 'firm' expects you to suck this up). I can't imagine anybody else getting away with it without professional consequences.
The royals get away with lower standards than they hold everybody else to - and we have to pay for the privilege!

Yes, that's exactly it. It's fascinating.

I am lucky too in that I don't brush up with very many of these problems (married, great relationship, no money problems), but it's not just people in individually bad circumstances that surprise me. The current political rhetoric is about how all these essential services (education, housing, healthcare, tertiary education etc etc) are told they must show they are delivering value for money, whereas the royal family just doesn't. There are several posts on how their presence benefits us (I agree to some extent, it does), but we never have to get into the nitty gritty (if we lop 20% from their budget, will we still get the same out of them?). Luckily for them, they have half the population willing to make the argument for them.

I agree donald but people are constantly saying they're "hard working" when they're really not. I equate their "hard work" days to nothing more arduous than what the rest of us might do on a leisure day, only easier, itms. Life is one big gigantic holiday for them.

The continued toleration of the royals is odd, considering how the rung below (the aristocracy) are mainly either ignored or despised. No one complained when great estates collapsed under pressure of death duties but at the same time the country was full of people talking about how the queen and her gin swilling mother were blooming marvellous.
I have no problem with gin swilling when it's not done at the taxpayers expense, I hasten to add

Ummm I do find some of the anti-royal venom a bit much. I am pleased that William and Harry (and Catherine) use their "inherited fame" for publicising good causes and breaking down barriers.
But just the same as I do for others who have "inherited fame" such as Chelsea Clinton and Rhianna Pratchett for example.

Its good that they put up with rather more press attention, and use it for good. And in all the cases I've mentioned seem to be quite thoughtful people.

So they should use their "inherited fame" for good use by publicising good causes. Nothing less is expected of them. The palace PR machine is always looking at ways to keep the monarchy "popular" with the people, and they know it doesn't take much to get us all thinking how wonderful they all are.They're massively rewarded for such comparitively small effort. They have to do something to justify their position, it's just self preservation nothing more.

justintimeforacuppa
I'm pleased I'm not as cynical as you. And even if we became a republic tomorrow, they would still have "inherited fame" and opportunities the rest of us don't get. C'est la vie.

Wonderful post Living