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 wonder if Britain will always have a monarchy...

239 replies

DrinkSangriaInThePark · 25/06/2019 12:21

... Or if not, how/when will British people get the opportunity to disband it?

I'm not from England, I'm Irish living in Ireland by the way, and I don't have very strong feelings for or against the British Royal family. But I seem to be hearing a lot of criticism of, and annoyance at, the Royal family recently, and I'm just wondering if there could ever be a referendum to decide whether the idea of a monarchy is outdated and unnecessary?

Again, I'm totally unbiased one way or another, but just wondering if the monarchy has to stay forever, just because it has always been there. With a democratic government, will be there ever be a time when it's deemed an unnecessary cost?

OP posts:
sue51 · 03/07/2019 15:57

No. Just a few O Levels to my name. However, with grade inflation.........

Alsohuman · 03/07/2019 16:03

So, who’s going to pay for the campaign for these presidential candidates? Because that’s why candidates in the US have to be super wealthy. You can’t limit it to academics or barristers or aardvarks because it’s supposed to be democratic.

MonkeyToesOfDoom · 03/07/2019 17:08

But morally the whole concept of royality is.... horrible isn’t it?

Hmm...
Let's think about that just for a minute.

She has no official powers. She's a figure head that spreads diplomacy and is very much a well recognised export of the UK around the world.
But, forget all that and get down to the nitty gritty.

People are annoyed that she was born into wealth, land, position etc etc.
Are the also annoyed with Paris Hilton?
She was born into wealth, land, businesses with massive tax breaks etc etc etc.

Or is it that people are annoyed that they get "our tax money"?
Well okay, so 'the queen' voluntarily pays n millions and gets a smal portion back. With that small portion of her money she pays for upkeep and running of the crown estate. So if she wasn't there, who pays for the crown estate to be kept up? The tax payer... The tax payer that would pay private companies to secure buck house, private companies to repair buck house etc etc. Multiplied by however.many properties crown estate holds.

Oh but maybe we should get rid of the crown estate? Maybe.. so buck house is gone.. it's bulldozed and is now flats for the Londoners. Millions of tourists now flock to see Brian Lovegood change his pants at 198B Buckingham Towers instead of the Changing of The Guards at a world famous landmark.

Or.maybe it's the actual position the queen holds? Living life in luxury, never knowing real hunger, poverty etc etc.
Well okay but now actually look at her life. You reckon old Liz can pop down the local in her PJs to drag old Phil back home cause he's one too many and he's chatting up the new barmaid again? Or is her life under the microscope and watchful eye of every media outlet on the planet? You think that would be a nice way to live? Every word uttered is scrutinized. Every action or no action is reported on and judged. Hell, even how she holds her handbag is national news. Let's not forget that she has also been working daily for an immense amount of years and can only stop.if she drops dead. Yeah, sound cushy as fuck, sign me.. but before you volunteer, go check her travel schedule and diary for the last couple years and then tell me you want to be doing that at her age. Fuck no.

So what is it that bothers people about the queen and the royals?
The money they inherited? So people that inherit wealth are bad?
The fact they get some money back to run the crown estate and pay for royal duties? So you want them scrapped and private companies to take over and end up costing far more?
Is it their lifestyle? Under immense pressure of scrutiny from every corner and every angle no matter where they go or what they do? Meghan and whotsherface can't even wear the same dress twice without some shitrag bitching about it.
The queen working daily for decades? Travelling endlessly to spread democracy and earning the good will of others toward our country?

I don't get it? Surely, logically, people can understand that the monarchy is a positive to the country when all is said and done? Is it just misguided, uneducated jealousy that makes people not like them?

DGRossetti · 03/07/2019 17:10

She has no official powers

Not quite sure where you imagined that from ? Care to cite ?

MonkeyToesOfDoom · 03/07/2019 17:16

She has no official powers in actual governance of the country. Sure she can dissolve parliament and free criminals and she can even declare war if she wants, but day to day governing is left to the government.
Any official power she may or may not hold she wouldn't use anyway.

Oh... And she doesn't own all the swans in England either..

BlamesFartsOnTheNeighbour · 03/07/2019 17:46

So much wrongness upthread I can't even...

One particular highlight is the claim that the queen brought in the current royal tax regime. Yeah, kicking and screaming after not paying any tax for the first forty-odd years of her reign Hmm

Would you rather have President Prince Andrew / Donald Trump for four years or King Andrew / Donald for sixty?

BlamesFartsOnTheNeighbour · 03/07/2019 17:47

day to day governing is left to the government

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos

MonkeyToesOfDoom · 03/07/2019 18:11

BlamesFartsOnTheNeighbour

day to day governing is left to the government

^en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos^

Hhmm... You have a point somewhere in.sure, but fucked if I can see it... Did you read your own link?
I'll paste a section just for you, save you the effort of following a link and reading..

Reaction to the memos upon their release was largely supportive of Charles, with little criticism of him.[4] The memos were variously described in the press as "underwhelming"[5] and "harmless"[6] and that their release had "backfired on those who seek to belittle him",[7] with reaction from the public also supportive.[8]

Tl;Dr
Man uses position to try to make world better for everyone.... The absolute scoundrel and bounder what what...

BlamesFartsOnTheNeighbour · 03/07/2019 18:14

My point, for the hard of understanding, is that you can't rely on past precedent for future monarchs not to be political meddlers.

MonkeyToesOfDoom · 03/07/2019 18:22

Ah so you're predicting the future behaviour of a man who may or may not be king at some unknown point on the future. Got ya..

BlamesFartsOnTheNeighbour · 03/07/2019 18:39

Yes. Exactly what you're doing, too.

NinjaInFluffyPJs · 03/07/2019 18:46

@Alsohuman as someone from a country where the president (voted in by people) is also quite fucked up, I am with you on this!
Plus, no one really buys memorabilia with normal president when on holidays, but royal family here does bring that extra income from it.

Also. They costed taxpayers £67 million last year, increased because of Buckingham palace renovations.Whitehouse and presidential family costed US over £1 billion in 2016 and it's gone up. I take royal family any time😮

bellinisurge · 03/07/2019 18:51

I think we are going to be relying on the Queen to avoid some crappy attempt to prorogue Parliament.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 03/07/2019 21:15

you can't rely on past precedent for future monarchs not to be political meddlers

Which brings us to the issue of Royal Assent - a recommended read for those who think the monarch has no powers in the governance of the country

It's true that assent hasn't been refused since 1707 and true again that there's an assumption "it would never happen". But given the current heir, that's not necessarily something I want to take on trust

New posts on this thread. Refresh page