Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 8 9 10 ··· 16 17

Original poster

AIBU to loathe the Royal Family

401 replies

InWinoVeritas · 21/04/2017 18:29

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?

OP posts:

songlark · 22/04/2017 22:08

It's right there's no money, but it's getting found now to keep those huge palaces maintained. Some of them are only used for a few weeks of the year by the royal family yet the money still has to be paid for the staff and the upkeep of them. Those palaces could be thrown open to the public and be more or less self sufficient, unlike now. Meanwhile hospitals and care homes for the most vulnerable in our society are closing.

IonaNE · 22/04/2017 22:20

YABU. The Queen is an admirable person.

Tapandgo · 22/04/2017 22:22

notstopped - people, home and abroad, queue up and pay a lot to visit stately homes - many join the national trust for the same reason. Many rake in thousands as filming locations or venues for bands and theatre groups to perform and the acres of estate land they sit in are visited by families as play and picnic sites and to host Christmas markets etc. They effectively pay their own way - no longer propped up by taxpayers

NannyOggsKnickers · 22/04/2017 22:30

Not read the whole thread but has anyone mentioned the Civil List yet and the fact that the Queen pays all her earnings from the crown estates to to government and then takes a portion back to pay for her upkeep. She pay 100% tax and then gets a rebate to maintain buildings that belong to the nation, not to her personally.

NannyOggsKnickers · 22/04/2017 22:31

So she is not propped up by our money at all. It is a mis representation of the facts.

Livelovebehappy · 22/04/2017 22:31

Love the Queen, but dread the day Charles becomes King. He represents the unacceptable face of the monarchy, and is pompous and arrogant. Still never forgiven him for what he did to the reputation of the Royal family with his adultery and Camillagate. There are also too many royals on the 'fringes', who do little work but are on the payroll of taxpayers. I really like Will and Kate though.

Livingtothefull · 22/04/2017 22:55

Of course they are subsidised by our money. The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Queen or the Windsor dynasty, it's State property.The Queen is an honorary custodian due to her position as Head of State, she isnnot the personal 'owner'. If in the future the monarch ceased to be Head of State s/he would have no claim on it. So in the event of a republic the property would remain the property of the state i.e. us.

Historically they were administered by the reigning monarch to help fund the business of governing the country….until in 1760, George III surrendered control over the Estate's revenues to the treasury. The deal was hugely in his favour as it relieved him of the responsibility of personally paying for the costs of the civil service, defence costs, the national debt, and his own personal debts.

That's why when Ireland gained independence, the Crown Estate in Ireland was transferred to the new Irish Free State government.

newdaddie · 22/04/2017 23:03

YANBU as you're entitled to have opinion on public figures. I normally just turn the page on the royal family but have a lot of respect for Harry coming out and talking about mental illness.

songlark · 22/04/2017 23:26

Laughing at the idea of the queen not propped up by our money

Abraiid2 · 23/04/2017 04:32

Those palaces could be thrown open to the public and be more or less self sufficient, unlike now.

Amazed nobody thought of opening Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle to the public. Oh wait...

NannyOggsKnickers · 23/04/2017 07:00

I just don't get this bitchy envious bitterness. They do a job. There are perks that come with the job but also responsibilities. They have a role and they do it.
People who loathe the royals just for what they have are essentially saying 'I can't have it so no one should'. It's really childish. I'd much rather have the queen in place than a more expensive president or the inevitable sell off of British assets to Middle Eastern investment groups.

Also, you are kidding yourselves if you think that without the royals all Crown estates would be maintained properly. If she's not using them in an official capacity why would the government pay to maintain them?

LapinR0se · 23/04/2017 07:09

I don't loathe the royals at all. Simply by existing they make a huge contribution to the economy via tourism.
I also think the queen is a great woman and the younger royals are at least trying to have a meaningful impact with their mental health campaigning.
It's just disappointing that Kate chose to talk about the loneliness and isolation of motherhood when it is not very credible given her circumstances. Also not very credible is her claim of shyness. It would be so much more poignant if she talked about the pressures of having to appear perfect all the time, being constantly scrutinised and the intrusiveness of social media. These are things that a lot of women and particularly girls struggle with and she could have a genuine effect here.

NannyOggsKnickers · 23/04/2017 07:38

Lapin That's a lot of assumptions. How do you know anything about her actual life beyond what is reported in the press? For all we know she had a horrible time BFing and had PND. Having nannies doesn't mean you are less likely to get PND and we don't know anything really about their household arrangements or anything. I find it amusing that so many on here seem to know details of their lives that aren't publicly available.

BarbarianMum · 23/04/2017 07:41

I'd be happy to see the back of the institution of monarchy personally, but I've no problems with them as individuals. Except for Prince Phillip. And Prince Andrew.

LapinR0se · 23/04/2017 07:55

She may well have had a horrible time breastfeeding and had PND. But she is very close to her mum and sister.
There are plenty of women up and down the country dealing with newborns and tongue tie and PND completely on their own.

Julia2016 · 23/04/2017 08:07

If she had pnd she should have come out and said it. The point of the whole thing was to normalise mental health issues.

Saying that becoming a mother was hard is life. It's the same for most of us. What most of us didn't have was all her help. I doubt very much when she was delirious from sleep and her body was sore that she didn't get a nights sleep.

songlark · 23/04/2017 08:13

People who loathe the royals just for what they have are essentially saying 'I can't have it so no one should'. It's really childish. I'd much rather have the queen in place than a more expensive president or the inevitable sell off of British assets to Middle Eastern investment groups.

Ridiculous statement, why would a president be more expensive, the total cost of the monarchy far exceeds what the "official" amount is. The cost of a presidency if it was ran similar to Ireland would be far far cheaper. They are an expensive archaic institution that has no place in a modern society. To suggest anyone who thinks that way must be "envious" is ridiculous. It is you who is being "childish" to come out with statements like "if i can't have it no one should",

DonaldStott · 23/04/2017 08:17

They do a job. There are perks that come with the job

Fpmsl.

Perks of a job are free health care, maybe a bonus, good expenses.

Perks of a job are NOT free million pound houses, 24/7 butlers, every whim catered to, personal chef, personal dressers, no money worries for the rest of your life, or the rest of your childrens life, or their childrens life, or their childrens childrens life. Well you get the picture.

But ffs, you can't say their 'job' has 'perks'. That is fucking ludicrous!!!

songlark · 23/04/2017 08:18

I don't loathe the royals at all. Simply by existing they make a huge contribution to the economy via tourism.

There isn't a shred of evidence to prove that. In fact we'd probably get more tourists without them, all those big empty palaces would be a huge draw. How does France manage so well. Besides that, the most popular tourist spot in the U.K. is Legoland.

LapinR0se · 23/04/2017 08:21

"In 2013, the birth of Prince George generated an estimate of £247 million in U.K. retail"
Source CNBC

NannyOggsKnickers · 23/04/2017 08:29

You are still making assumptions. She may very well be close to her my and sister but that doesn't mean she wasn't lonely. They were with her all the time. The loneliness of parenthood can happen in big families if you don't have other parents to talk to and discuss issues. Again, we know nothing about her birth, feeding, pressures from ILs etc. If I am going to play the game and try to imagine what thing were like then I imagine it would be difficult to be a new mum in the public eye and not really be able to go out looking like crap or be able to discuss any of your issues with other mums for fear that they would sell you out to the press. But she. But I would imagine that she can't say that because people would jump on her for being ungrateful for her position. But those are just my assumptions

NannyOggsKnickers · 23/04/2017 08:37

song It is the politics of envy. The subtext of all of your post are that you'd rather pay a similar amount for someone who is elected because you object to royalty getting something for what you perceive to be nothing. Again, most of the post on here focus on the priviledged and not the responsibilities. It is a job and one that requires your entire life. They represent us both at home and abroad and serve a very important diplomatic role. What is the issues with that.

Presidencies are, on the whole, much more expensive than monarchies. The Irish presidency is on the lower end of that scale and isn't used in the same diplomatic and ceremonial way that say the US president and our royals are.

I would much rather have someone who was trained from birth to fulfill the duties than some venal, money grabbing politician who won a popularity contest to be the face of Britain.

JazzAnnNonMouse · 23/04/2017 08:41

I don't agree with the monarchy and struggle to see why one family should have such financial aid from the tax payer when millions of their 'subjects' are in financial poverty and going through the cuts that this government is imposing.

It makes no sense to me to have a royal family.

As people though I have no idea as I've never met them. Their kids are cute and harry is funny and likable. I do think it's time though to hang up the crown and share some of that wealth.

We would still get tourism for the historical buildings crown jewel's etc. Look at what Versaille makes and what they did with their royal family!

JazzAnnNonMouse · 23/04/2017 08:47

And I'm willing to bet that lots of people would jump at the chance of a for life job which consists of lots of travel and lavish events,chatting to some people occasionally etc with all the perks the monarchy offers.

NannyOggsKnickers · 23/04/2017 08:48

Royal Finances:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family

Flip

1 2 ··· 8 9 10 ··· 16 17

Swipe left for the next trending thread