Active discussions

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

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To have lost interest in the royal wedding because...

448 replies

malificent7 · 12/04/2018 03:59

If the council in Windsor wanting to clear homeless out ?

I mean why don't the royal couple open a shelter instead given they are 'humanitarian' ?

OP posts:
BalloonSlayer · 17/04/2018 07:03

I am probably not going to be able to put this across very well, but I read recently that the Queen and Prince Philip understand very well that the adulation and attention they get is because of the role they are in, because of The Crown itself. It's not personal. People would line the streets and cheer whoever was Queen, it's not because they like this particular one so very much.

It went on to say that Diana, and also Fergie, made the mistake thinking that all the waving and cheering was for them personally. That people loved them. And that's where it all went wrong - it made them think they were something bigger than the whole institution. Although in Diana's case I think people did "love" her - or think they did - and in some ways she did become bigger than the whole institution.

I think there is something in that. And it explains Kate's very reserved behaviour in public, she seems to have bought into this theory.

People say no one will accept Charles as King, but they will, because it will be The Crown that they are fawning over, not mister white leather toilet seat. People will still line the streets to cheer Charles when he is King, because he'll be the King. (And Camilla will be Queen not the Duchess of Blah, because the wife of the King is the Queen and that's the end of that.)

Mightymucks · 17/04/2018 07:14

I’m not sure that’s right balloon, I’m not sure the monarchy would even exist if it wasn’t for the personality of our Queen at the moment.

I was saying above about a constitutional monarch not having politics or opinions. And she absolutely embodies that. Plus her long reign has created a status quo. People don’t like change. And not that many people can remember a different monarch. And hardly any a time before she existed in the public eye.

It’s likely we’re going to have a series of relatively short monarchs after her so the continuity aspect will be gone. And they’re also likely to be elderly upper class men which harks back to a time which is long in the past.

I think it is the Queen and I’m not sure it will survive without her.

findingmyfeet12 · 17/04/2018 07:53

If Edward VIII hadn't abdicated the monarchy would be long gone. He'd have seen to that.

Mightymucks · 17/04/2018 07:55

Or we might be Nazis. He was another one no good at not having political opinions.

findingmyfeet12 · 17/04/2018 07:57

As for MM having her own opinions. Anyone in her position with their own opinions would have been sneered at.

She's unelected and has been thrust into the limelight by virtue of her impending marriage. Her opinions should be of as much value and given as much prominence as anyone else's. Of course it will annoy people that she has a platform.

BertrandRussell · 17/04/2018 08:29

She's a woman in her 30s. Of course she has opinions. Which particular ones do people object to?

cleofatra · 17/04/2018 08:36

I have not heard any of her opinions, don't really care what they are and don't object to them. For me, each interview or appearance I have seen has been all about how she is going to throw herself into this "role" like it's public office.
Of course she is entitled to opinions and is likely a confident, intelligent and mature lady but as said before it's a marriage not a job offer/election in to office.

BertrandRussell · 17/04/2018 09:03

I presume she means she is going to be very involved with the whatever it's called - the mental health initiative thing that William and Harry started? I honestly don't see a problem with her wanting to be part of initiatives like that and expressing enthusiasm about them.

Mightymucks · 17/04/2018 09:53

She's a woman in her 30s. Of course she has opinions. Which particular ones do people object to?

I don’t object to any of her opinions because she’s an adult and entitled to think whatever she damn well pleases.

However I would strongly object if she were to use a supposedly apolitical monarchy as a platform for political views just as I would to any other member of the RF doing the same thing.

She is not elected and has no more right to political influence than some bloke in a pub.

findingmyfeet12 · 17/04/2018 09:55

A royal trying to highlight the plight of the disadvantaged is annoying in the extreme to me.

Call me cynical or jealous but it does strike me as hugely hypocritical and false.

findingmyfeet12 · 17/04/2018 09:57

Mightymucks, exactly. It's not her opinions that are the problem, it's the fact that she's got a platform that the ordinary unelected don't have.

BertrandRussell · 17/04/2018 09:59

Depends what you mean by political, surely? How about Diana with HIV/AIDS and landmines?

Mightymucks · 17/04/2018 10:08

It’s the Royal Foundation. It’s basically a collaborative platform that brings existing charities in to work together. It’s also apolitical, so I can’t see a problem with that.

But whether or not somebody who has previously been very politically active would be happy working in an environment where what she can do and say about it is kind of the point.

I mean, put yourself in that position bertrand, because you have similar politics. You’re doing something with the mental health angle and what you do and see convinces you that the service is badly funded and poorly run (which is probably true) and you can’t speak out and say what the problems are and who is to blame. You just have to turn up in a pretty dress smile and say a few anodyne sound bites.

I doubt you could do that bertrand, I’m not sure I could either and I’m unconvinced MM will be very happy doing it either.

And the point is she just can’t.

Mightymucks · 17/04/2018 10:12

Depends what you mean by political, surely? How about Diana with HIV/AIDS and landmines?

HIV and AIDS was largely unpolitical in the way Diana handled it. The angle which was political was gay rights, but Diana never actually made any overt reference to that.

Landmines, it’s time to put on my tinfoil helmet. I think Diana was killed by the security services because of her campaigning against the arms industry and the attention she was drawing to the havoc it was wreaking in poor countries. I’m convinced all the guff about the RF bumping her off because of her fling with Dodi is a red herring. It would make much more sense because it is a multi billion industry.

RoseWhiteTips · 17/04/2018 10:46

She seems too self absorbed and self promoting to be interested in other people in a genuine sense. It is going to be very difficult for someone like her not to the focus of attention - and once the wedding is over, she will just be another member of The Firm.

RoseWhiteTips · 17/04/2018 10:47

...not to be the focus...

marchin1984 · 17/04/2018 10:52

The ONS stats not enough proof?

No. What do they say about the monarchy and tourism?

This just shows a total misunderstanding of what a constitutional monarchy is. The whole point of a constitutional monarchy is that they don’t (publicly) have opinions on much and they don’t try and influence politics.

that's not the point of a constitutional monarchy. There is no point to the constitutional monarchy other than keeping their wealth and privilege. They keep quiet to further that goal as it would be seen to cross the line. preventing the royalists from turning republican is the main reason for that.

Mightymucks · 17/04/2018 11:07

that's not the point of a constitutional monarchy. There is no point to the constitutional monarchy other than keeping their wealth and privilege. They keep quiet to further that goal as it would be seen to cross the line. preventing the royalists from turning republican is the main reason for that

Well duh. That’s the entire point of a constitutional monarchy badly explained. The monarchy only has consent to rule because it has public support to do so (and does have majority support). If they start trying to exercise political power on the basis of their birth then they will lose that consent pretty rapidly. Which is exactly the reason why she can’t do it unless she wants to bring down the monarchy. And the monarchy would bring her down before she managed that.

marchin1984 · 17/04/2018 11:14

Where do we come from? Was it the big bang? How did life begin in our tiny little planet? Are we the only planet where life exists? And...

The monarchy only has consent to rule because it has public support to do so (and does have majority support).

All great mysteries for which we may never have the answers.

Mightymucks · 17/04/2018 11:54

Meh. I’m a bit ambivalent about it. I think the Queen’s done a good job, but if those who follow her don’t it might be time to look at a new system.

I do kind of like the Irish system and ones where they vote for people who’ve achieved stuff as a figurehead. But then I look back at some of the people who’ve been revered at some point in this country and think, would I really have wanted Jimmy Savile or Bob Geldof for HoS. No thanks.

Mightymucks · 17/04/2018 11:54

I’m just interested in it because it is such a fascinating relic from the past.

marchin1984 · 17/04/2018 12:02

I do kind of like the Irish system and ones where they vote for people who’ve achieved stuff as a figurehead. But then I look back at some of the people who’ve been revered at some point in this country and think, would I really have wanted Jimmy Savile or Bob Geldof for HoS. No thanks.

I imagine if one of the Royals was in a Jimmy Saville like scandal, it would be guarded pretty strongly until it got out. In any case, birthright is no guard against keeping such people out.

Your first point that the Queen has done a "good job", but what is the comparison? And what job is that? Because there is no competition for the job we in fact have no idea how good a job she is doing. And given that the job is strange, not just because HoS is an unusual role, but also because it is a birthright position, what is the job, really? Does it even need doing, or is it just some really expensive make work scheme to justify their pay?

Mightymucks · 17/04/2018 12:05

but what is the comparison? And what job is that?

Quite a few people have done the same job before, and some were completely shit at it. That’s one comparison. Plus comparisons to HoS systems in other countries. I dare say quite a few Americans would swap their HOS for the Queen at the moment.

marchin1984 · 17/04/2018 12:15

Quite a few people have done the same job before, and some were completely shit at it. That’s one comparison. Plus comparisons to HoS systems in other countries. I dare say quite a few Americans would swap their HOS for the Queen at the moment.

Well, unless you are over 70 or so, you don't remember how the last monarch was. Historical accounts are not the same as living under the monarch, so it's very hard to compare that way. I am sure most people don't think the Queen is good compared to George.

I can't speak for other Americans, but I would not trade Trump for the Queen, because that's not the actual trade (this is from someone who thinks Trump is a disaster). You simply can't compare someone who has had to fight for his role, who has to make tough and unpopular decisions daily in hard times to someone who is a effectively a glorified host. Obama, who I'd argue was a much better leader, also was deeply unpopular with much of the population. They simply aren't the same role, and it's a false comparison.

findingmyfeet12 · 17/04/2018 13:21

The queen has done a great job in keeping quiet and doing her duty because amongst other things it's ensured that her family will want for nothing.

Most of us work hard in our jobs for far less return so that's no recommendation.

The point is that should a role even exist where we're promoting the principle that some people are born better or higher than others?