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.

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:
meditrina · 12/04/2018 11:56

Actually, if we have to have a monarchy, i’d much rather have a proper one, wearing crowns all the time, dripping with diamonds and eating two bites of a roast swan and throwing the rest to the peasants, and driving round in gold coaches pulled by 16 perfectly matched grey horses. This rather tedious attempt to look like any other upper middle class family is just as expensive. ineffective, boring and doesn’t even give us anything pretty to look at

That sounds rather fun!

SchadenfreudePersonified · 12/04/2018 11:57

Me too Wdigin

I have a lot of respect for the Queen, but many of the others (looking at you Andrew) seem to just want to grab what they can and do nothing for it.

diddl · 12/04/2018 11:57

I think what they are doing is probably what constitutes to them a small wedding!

I thinnk that rather than clinging to the RF they should go elsewhere to do humanitarian work in their own names.

LillianGish · 12/04/2018 11:57

I don't think Meghan has a clue what she is letting herself in for. In then end that's why he's had to go for someone who is not British - none of his British girlfriends were up for it because they understood fully what being married to him would entail.

LaurieMarlow · 12/04/2018 11:58

Any profits being given to exchequer, getting back sovereign grant to defray the expenses of being head of state.

You could have a head of state on an absolute fraction of what the royals cost us. The Irish model is very cost effective for example.

lostjanni · 12/04/2018 12:00

I honestly see no point in the royals. They may cost each of us only £1, but that is 65.64 million pounds a year. Just imagine what that could be spent on? It may not be bucketloads in the grand scheme of things but the police force, nhs, schools etc could sure use that money.
We could open up all the royal palaces and charge tours for them making more money then we do now.
We could keep them, but if we do, they must foot all their security bills, pay an extorinaite amount of tax, and have to live in more down to earth places not fucking multiple palaces across the country.

SchadenfreudePersonified · 12/04/2018 12:00

Another vote for the "let them eat swan" monarchy arrangement!

It sounds fab!

Will they have to wear glass slippers and sleep on pea-ey mattresses?

expatinscotland · 12/04/2018 12:01

Never had any interest to begin with. They're a couple version of Bob Geldof and Bono, nauseatingly dull. The royal family's investment portfolio included the likes of Brighthouse, which ripped off the British poor, but we keep giving them tens of millions in taxpayer monies every year and buy the whole 'They bring in loads of money' bollocks. Last I went to visit Versailles, I had to pay 15 euros to get in there, and yet the French haven't had a royal family in centuries.'

findingmyfeet12 · 12/04/2018 12:01

The fact that the queen herself may have done a good job isn't really an argument for that job existing.

The paperwork etc that she deals with only exists because we have a monarchy with all the ceremony and red tape that entails. Other countries manage perfectly well.

Wdigin2this · 12/04/2018 12:04

Shaden I agree with you there, the only people we should be now paying for, is the Queen, D of E, Charles, William and family and Harry and family. The rest of the Queen's children, can afford to (with financial help from the Queen's personal purse) look after themselves. There is no place on the civil list for any other members of the RF

LaurieMarlow · 12/04/2018 12:04

It doesn't sound so very hard to me. All the actual graft is done by others.

She's turned out for thousands of ceremonies

Travel arrangements, itinerary all organised by someone else. Research conducted and speeches written for her. Someone on hand at all times to tell her what to do, where to go and what to say.

always looked and presented herself immaculately, (who'd want to have to look their party best 24/7)

Again, someone else to choose, fit and look after her clothes. A bath run for her every morning by her lady in waiting. Hair/styling sorted by someone else.

She's travelled (allbeit in luxury) without her husband, or her children, to places all over the world, for more than half a century, representing this country and fostering good relationships

As you say, in luxury, being exposed to people, places, things the rest of us can hardly dream of. A team of advisors on hand at all times to tell her what to do and what to say.

She has a ton of paperwork on her desk, which she deals with every single day

Assisted by a large, dedicated team of secretaries and admin people.

she puts duty before self at all times!

I think I'd find that very easy in the circumstances. The rewards are substantial.

ParisUSM · 12/04/2018 12:05

*So not essentially different from what it is now? Any profits being given to exchequer, getting back sovereign grant to defray the expenses of being head of state. It's a remarkably good deal for public finances.

Or did you mean something else?*

At the moment it doesn't belong to the people, and I believe it should

This is a ridiculous amount of money, I can't understand why anyone would think it is a good deal.

Royal accounts - some key figures
£82.2m - Amount the Queen is expected to get from the Sovereign Grant in 2018/19
£4.5m - Cost of the Queen and the Royal Family's official travel in 2016/17
£288,697 - Amount spent on the Royal Train travel for 14 trips
£1.2m - Cost of replacing doors on the orangery at Windsor Castle
£154,000 - Estimated cost of Prince Charles and Camilla using "Cam Force One" - the official government plane - to visit Italy, Romania and Austria earlier this year

derxa · 12/04/2018 12:05

I'll be agog as usual. I love a wedding.

The80sweregreat · 12/04/2018 12:06

pigs, a lot of people on here are older and have seen all this before. A lot of people were concerned that Prince Charles was marrying someone so young and naive and it wouldnt last and that was long before the internet. I was only 16 when they got married and I do remember reading things in the papers that came true! They turned out to be right as well.
I hope that they are happy and its a long and respectful/ wonderful marriage, but time will tell i guess..

joystir59 · 12/04/2018 12:06

We aren't getting a day off. So.

Wdigin2this · 12/04/2018 12:06

Well Laurie I still wouldn't want the job, would you?

meditrina · 12/04/2018 12:06

"You could have a head of state on an absolute fraction of what the royals cost us. The Irish model is very cost effective for example"

Yes, but a serious outlier in terms of typical cost.

UK is nicely middling.

skippy67 · 12/04/2018 12:07

I like Meghan a lot. I feel sorry for her though as I don't think she has a clue what she's letting herself in for. She'll miss her freedom, and her job, and will have to put up with so much crap now she's hooked up with Harry. Why couldn't he have given everything up to be plain old Harry Windsor and moved to LA? That would've been much more sensible!

expatinscotland · 12/04/2018 12:12

' I feel sorry for her though as I don't think she has a clue what she's letting herself in for. '

You feel sorry for a 37-year-old minor actress and think she doesn't have a clue? Haahahaaahaaa! He's what, 6th down the line now? He's not even a spare anymore.

EdithWeston · 12/04/2018 12:13

Royal accounts - some key figures

You missed one - amount given by Crown Estates to treasury £304m

So on the figure you cite, gain to government: £215m

(Yes, that doesn't add up exactly to the figures in the earlier post, because some are double counted).

Creambun2 · 12/04/2018 12:13

Meghan is an airhead

LaurieMarlow · 12/04/2018 12:15

Well Laurie I still wouldn't want the job, would you?

I don't think I'd mind it actually. But then I'm a sucker for a stately home (and she has quite a few).

The question though is not whether anyone else would want the job rather should the job exist in the first place.

ParisUSM · 12/04/2018 12:16

@EdithWeston

How can it be a 'gain' when it showed by owned by the State in the first place?

LaurieMarlow · 12/04/2018 12:17

So on the figure you cite, gain to government: £215m

And how is it a 'gain' if it is (de facto) state money to begin with.

EdithWeston · 12/04/2018 12:17

"He's what, 6th down the line now? He's not even a spare anymore."

Just to be ghoulish, I think he is.

Because the Cambridge family are often together, so it is possible that horrible accident or attack could wipe out the whole lot in a oner. Which puts him next. Only when the Cambridge DC are a bit older and the family is not together all the time as you are with small children, will he really stop being the spare.

Though of course, I think he could step out of that role if he wanted - Prince Andrew and his offspring being the next set of spares. The line of succession isn't short!