Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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family recently, and I'm just wondering if there could ever be a referendum to decide whether the idea of a monarchy is outdated and unnecessary?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:
StreetwiseHercules · 26/06/2019 22:21

There won’t be a UK for much longer.

Or I suppose there will, a United Kingdom of England and Wales.

CoffeeToffeeFudge · 27/06/2019 10:05

You’re just posting speculative shit now

Not really speculation when it’s based on my own thoughts regarding how she presents herself (both before and since Harry) and the remarks of people who have worked with her (not unnamed sources). Fair enough if you disagree.

And even if you were a fan of Suits, you still wouldn’t be on an MN thread talking about her if she hadn’t had a relationship with and then married a prince. In terms of her current fame, privilege and wealth it’s absurd to call her “self-made”.

LaurieMarlow · 27/06/2019 10:29

it’s absurd to call her “self-made”

Of course it isn’t. She had established herself as an actress long before she married Harry. She’d done well for herself before she met him.

Unlike the royals, she didn’t just pop out of the right vagina.

CoffeeToffeeFudge · 27/06/2019 10:50

Is that all it takes to declare someone “self-made”. A job that you are moderately successful at? Well, that describes me too - and virtually every woman I know.

Her career was perfectly fine but she wasn’t a runaway success & everything she has now is not because of any job she had.

That’s what most people mean by “self- made” - someone who has achieved everything they have by their own hard work. That does not describe the Duchess of Sussex, I’m afraid, who was living in a (very nice) rented terraced house before Kensington Palace & Windsor Great Park.

It’s unfair to diminish her job, but it’s ridiculous to try and paint her as so successful & rich she didn’t “need Harry”. Well, for fame and fortune, yes she did.

And Harry spent a long time in the army while William helped save lives by flying people to hospital. That’s not nothing.

Kate is pathetic for never troubling herself with any kind of job while Meghan has certainly shown incredible drive and determination in her life - but to look at her in bespoke Givenchy with a £600k jewellery collection & a wardrobe of clothes worth over a million and describe her as “self-made” is obvious nonsense.

She had a job.

She wasn’t on the cover of a single magazine before she met Harry. Not one. She wasn’t even used for Suits promotion, particularly.

But if you want to pretend he married Jennifer Lawrence, fine.

LaurieMarlow · 27/06/2019 10:54

It really is ridiculous to try and diminish her very reasonable success. I can only put that down to jealousy (which I’m sure you’ll vehemently deny Wink)

And she absolutely was used prominently in the publicity for Suits right from the start.

From season 1, comms consistently featured six main cast members of which she was one. I’m always bemused when people try to deny this.

DGRossetti · 03/07/2019 13:26

Saw this, and thought of y'all Grin

www.heraldscotland.com/news/17742413.neil-mackay-we-need-to-start-talking-about-the-abolition-of-the-monarchy

heraldscotland.com
Neil Mackay: We need to start talking about the abolition of the monarchy
By Neil Mackay
6-8 minutes

IT wasn’t just the usual public displays of bowing and scraping which struck me as odd and depressing during the Queen’s Scottish visit, but the complete lack of questioning of both the Royal family’s place in society, and the institution of monarchy itself.

On an occasion meant to mark devolution’s 20th anniversary, where was the discussion about the right to rule? Where was the scrutiny of privilege, power and wealth? Why is the monarchy, which stands at the very heart of our democracy, not subjected to rigorous debate?

READ MORE: Calls for inquiry into spending on the monarchy

The monarchy is often defended on the grounds that "the Queen is a good woman". I know nothing of the Queen’s soul. I can neither judge her good or bad, but I accept many see her as a person of moral standing. However, the character of Elizabeth Windsor is meaningless in any debate about monarchy.

The institution of monarchy should have been buried decades, if not centuries, ago. Like the death penalty or denying votes to women or jailing people for who they have sex with, the idea that a person has a hereditary right to rule stands in opposition to every principle of modernity.

What slaves it makes us to accept this state of affairs. This isn’t a call for some Robespierre revolution. Britain – England in particular – has been sucking on the crack-pipe of royalty for too long to be weaned off any time soon. What’s needed though is an intelligent ongoing conversation which challenges the accepted wisdom that monarchy is a good thing when it clearly isn’t.

The time is ripe for that debate. It may be an ugly thing to say but the Queen’s age makes the discussion pertinent. Even Republicans like me accept that the monarchy is safe as long as she lives. However, the entire fabulation – every palace and power, every penny and privilege – needs to be put to the test before her Crown passes on.

I struggle to find one argument to sustain monarchy. People cite tradition. It used to be traditional to burn witches. The traditions of this country have served us badly. Britain clings to the past like a drowning sailor – if the country hadn’t been so obsessed with the war, the flag, and the Royals, we might have seen clearer and avoided the red, white and blue disaster that’s Brexit. The Royals are in the DNA of fervid English nationalism and exceptionalism.

After tradition comes the tourism argument. Rich Americans spend good money gawping at Buckingham Palace. Is anyone stupid enough to accept instant second class status in their own country in return for tourist dollars that will never come their way? It truly is a case of selling your birthright for a mess of pottage.

We’re the butt of a disgraceful sick joke which we’ve played on ourselves. We take a handful of people and elevate them, gifting them gilded lives, while at the same time the UN describes the poverty in Britain as tragic and systematic. Our sense of shame should be boiling over, but we don’t even discuss the rights and wrongs of monarchy anymore, let alone the idea of abolition.

READ MORE: Harry and Meghan cottage revamp cost taxpayer £2.4m

The cooing over royal babies is particularly disgusting. A child is born into the world who will never financially struggle a moment in their life. A child has power and prestige heaped upon it in the cradle – like gifts from fairy godmothers – even it that child should grow up to be intellectually or morally inferior to many of the rest of us. Monarchy murders meritocracy.

Social mobility barely exists in the UK. The top professions are dominated by public schools and Oxbridge. No wonder. The monarchy effectively codifies inequality in law. Britain remains a country of the one per cent, and the Queen is the great symbol for that class-ridden stratification of society.

Meghan and Harry have spent millions in public funds doing up their already free home, Frogmore Cottage in the grounds of Windsor Castle. The final bill is expected to be £3.2m. It will be the perfect home for their baby. There was a headline in one of the glossy magazines recently which read "Why the Royals can’t stop giggling". It had lots of pictures of Harry and William and all the rest of them laughing. I couldn’t help but think, they’re laughing at us.

Amid all the squandering of money on these people, it feels redundant to make the point that there are working families unable to pay their mortgages across the land, and jobless families struggling to clothe and feed themselves. Yet, the British doff their cap, and don’t bat an eyelid.

The philosopher Thomas Paine said "a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."

Britain, with its stubborn anti-intellectualism and ingrained deference, has refrained from critical thinking about the royals. One moment spent in true thought about monarchy and what the institution says about Britain, what it symbolises within our society, and the entire edifice would logically come tumbling down. Monarchy is incompatible with equality.

There was one person who dared to hint that the emperor had no clothes, though. When the Queen came north, Patrick Harvie, co-leader of the Greens, refrained from the usual obsequiousness, dropped the phrase Your Majesty from his address to Holyrood and simply referred to the Queen and the rest of the audience as Friends. Mr Harvie also stated that it’s the people of Scotland who are sovereign – no-one else.

That simple levelling – of bringing the Queen down to the same status as the rest of us – was an important act which quietly and politely said: "not everyone accepts this grotesquerie".

Britain is locked on a path of seismic and inevitable constitutional change and the royals will have to change with the times. Britain may soon be a rump state, with a unified Ireland to the west, an independent Scotland to the north, and a lost Europe across the channel. The Queen may find herself ruling over a very little England indeed. Whether the monarchy continues elsewhere in these islands after her death remains to be seen, but the conversation needs to begin now.

BossAssBitch · 03/07/2019 14:08

LaMarschallin

to
MyOpinionIsValid

They stay. No discussion to be had

Well, there we are then. No need for further debate

Grin

I'm another who would be happy to see the institution go after the present monarch dies. I have no respect for the rest of them

I'm with you, LaMarschallin and it appears many people feel the same.

The monarchy will not be around in another 20 years.

BossAssBitch · 03/07/2019 14:17

DGRossetti

Brilliant article

NinjaInFluffyPJs · 03/07/2019 14:24

Tbh seeing how last prime ministers did, do you really want someone like that as a president? Because that could very well happen.
I like the Monarchy in some way. There are 10 countries with monarchy still on in Europe so it's not like UK is the last one left.

Alsohuman · 03/07/2019 14:25

Unfortunately for Mr Mackay, 70% of the British population disagree with him.

DGRossetti · 03/07/2019 14:27

There are 10 countries with monarchy still on in Europe so it's not like UK is the last one left.

Which completely swerves the fact that the other 9 are ceremonial. Unlike the UKs where the Monarch is head of state.

Alsohuman · 03/07/2019 14:37

Given that all the Brexiteers maintain it’s all about sovereignty, surely we need a monarch, not much sovereignty without one.

DGRossetti · 03/07/2019 14:44

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

sue51 · 03/07/2019 14:45

Alsohuman 70% at the moment. Just give it time.

AllTheWhoresOfMalta · 03/07/2019 14:47

MonkeyToesOfDoom your finances make perfect sense. Can’t argue with that. But morally the whole concept of royality is.... horrible isn’t it? I mean, it’s so.... unfair. And I know that life is unfair etc etc but it makes no sense to me that this is a thing we all just accept. Our head of state- as others have pointed out, a serious job- is just a woman that fell out of the right womb. She’s alright at it, as it happens. Seems like a nice old bird. But there’s no mechanism to stop a lunatic getting hold of the keys to the palace is there? And no mechanism to stop them if they did.

Alsohuman · 03/07/2019 14:47

A lot of time. I’d put money on the monarchy outliving me.

NinjaInFluffyPJs · 03/07/2019 14:48

Which completely swerves the fact that the other 9 are ceremonial. Unlike the UKs where the Monarch is head of state.

In Belgium the ruler has more powers than ruler in UK AFAIK. All decisions are done with parliament as well.

YoungEurope · 03/07/2019 14:57

Tbh seeing how last prime ministers did, do you really want someone like that as a president? Because that could very well happen.

But at least it could be you, or a member of your family. None of us here, no matter how talented / bright / diplomatic etc etc can ever be HOS under the current set up.

Also an unsuitable President could be voted out. Not something that can ever happen with the Monarchy.

derxa · 03/07/2019 15:24

The cooing over royal babies is particularly disgusting. A child is born into the world who will never financially struggle a moment in their life. A child has power and prestige heaped upon it in the cradle – like gifts from fairy godmothers – even it that child should grow up to be intellectually or morally inferior to many of the rest of us. Monarchy murders meritocracy. I'm not sure a true meritocracy exists anywhere in the world. Look at the Bush dynasty or the Kennedys in the USA for example

QueenoftheBiscuitTin · 03/07/2019 15:30

I don't really understand the purpose of a monarchy in this century.

sue51 · 03/07/2019 15:37

I too would like a President we can get rid of every few years. As the role would be ceremonial and the office seen as above politics, we need not have a politician. Maybe a highly revered academic would be more suitable.

Alsohuman I suspect they will outlive me but its only right that we should explore the alternatives.

Alsohuman · 03/07/2019 15:43

But I don’t want an alternative. I like having a monarchy and all the tradition that goes with it. I don’t want a system like the US whereby only spectacularly wealthy people can run to be president. And in the current shitstorm, I most definitely don’t trust the great British public to elect the right person. They can’t even vote in the right winner of X Factor.

sue51 · 03/07/2019 15:50

That's why I suggested an academic. There's very little money in that these days.

sue51 · 03/07/2019 15:51

Apart from grossly overpaid chancellors.

derxa · 03/07/2019 15:52

Maybe a highly revered academic would be more suitable. Unless it was Baroness Warnock (now sadly deceased) I wouldn't be interested.
Are you a highly revered academic by any chance? Grin