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 ··· 14 15 16 ··· 31 32

Original poster

Queens speech

796 replies

Imfinallyhappy1 · 04/04/2020 23:05

Am I the only one who actually couldn’t give a shiny shit what she has to say at this time.

People are dying , everyone is affected so the last thing we need is a rich old woman sitting in her ivory castle asking us to stay calm.

It’s really wound me up, it’s constantly being mentioned on the news!

OP posts:

Clavinova · 05/04/2020 12:34

goodness - I didn't know people actually believe the PR drivel. Being 'useful' by highlighting a charities 'message'. It's embarrassing to say the least.

Embarrassing for the Policy Manager at the Charities Aid Foundation?

"The Royal Family are an incredible force for good when it comes to supporting charities. Royal patronage adds status to an organisation as well as giving them some much needed publicity, but perhaps most importantly it can have a positive effect on donations."

www.alliancemagazine.org/blog/charities-should-be-thankful-for-royal-philanthropy/

Puzzledandpissedoff · 05/04/2020 12:36

It's worth noting that George VI and the then Queen Elizabeth stayed in London throughout the blitz - they didn't sod off to the countryside

Considering Edward had just turned his back on the job I'm not sure sodding off to the countryside would have suited the need for spin
And it was the previous Queen who acted a storm did a lot during the war years while George VI tagged along looking like a spare part; Princess Elizabeth as she was then was too young to have done much apart from the a broadcast "to the children" and a bit of PR work in the ATS in the closing months

On a side note, how odd that nobody's explained why the Queen couldn't possibly risk admitting a cameraman and now apparently can

MarshaBradyo · 05/04/2020 12:38

Puzzled no idea really but they could set up a room and control remotely

LaurieMarlow · 05/04/2020 12:42

The Queen Mother had a knack for PR that this lot are sorely lacking.

Sceptre86 · 05/04/2020 12:42

I think it is appropriate for the Queen to address the nation as head of state. Whether I will tune in is a different matter. Statements about the Queen giving up her vast wealth or opening up her many homes to the plebs is laughable and not gonna happen any more than any other millionaire or billionaire in the UK will do. The rich tend to want to stay that way, funnily enough.

The Queen and Charles are both in at risk groups due to age alone. However, this would have been a great time for Prince William to show his worth and differentiate himself from his brother. He could volunteer for the NHS or any other organisation that needs help. This would win over the public and be great pr. The trouble with that is that he has security and handlers and he cannot make such decisions for himself, where he goes they go. Unlike if you or me decided to volunteer, he would be putting the lives of people who have to protect him at unnecessary risk. Whether he should do that is up for debate? So how else can he make himself visible to be helping the national effort? Making food parcels up for the elderly and dropping them door to door? What do people think he could do at this time to raise morale?

Mamamia456 · 05/04/2020 12:42

audreysview - People in NK are brainwashed from birth. They see their leader as some kind of God, they have no contact with the outside world. They live in fear of their lives. There is no such thing as free speech there. People in this country have their own opinion on the royal family. Some people like them others don't, but you can't say that because people share a different view to you that they have been brainwashed. That's just nonsense.

Pelleas · 05/04/2020 12:42

BBC - "The message was filmed by a single cameraman wearing protective equipment, with all the other technical staff in another room."

I doubt it really took them three weeks to think of that 'brilliant solution'. Her message will have been in plan for a while and timed to coincide with the point when the government imagines resolve might be starting to flag.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 05/04/2020 12:43

Just out of interest, has anyone ever done an objective cost/benefit analysis to determine how much the RF help to raise for chrity, as opposed to how much each visit costs (especially for the also-ran members)?

I genuinely don't know either way, but though someone else might?

Puzzledandpissedoff · 05/04/2020 12:51

The Queen Mother had a knack for PR that this lot are sorely lacking

You're not kidding, Laurie. Whatever else anyone thinks of her there's no denying she was superb at the job as it was pereceived back then, especially considering the dead weight she had at her side

I realise George's main attraction lay in not being Edward, but sometimes wonder how he'd have fared in today's world, where automatic deference is less of a given

Pelleas · 05/04/2020 12:53

how much the RF help to raise for chrity, as opposed to how much each visit costs

The figures for their own charities such as the Prince's Trust are published. I'm not sure how you'd differentiate Royal-driven revenue for other charities from non-Royal driven revenue.

In theory if, for example, Save the Children said 'since Kate's visit we've seen a 10% upturn in donations' that might translate into a measurable figure, but it would be impossible to say whether the 'Royalness' had been a factor or whether the same publicity might have been generated by any other famous person (or even whether it was wholly or partly coincidental).

FunkyKingston · 05/04/2020 12:54

The Queen Mother had a knack for PR that this lot are sorely lacking

I think she got undue deference thanks to her age. She spent the best part of a century getting pissed and running up gambling debts interspersed with very occasional waving and plaque unveiling.

LaurieMarlow · 05/04/2020 12:57

I think she got undue deference thanks to her age. She spent the best part of a century getting pissed and running up gambling debts interspersed with very occasional waving and plaque unveiling.

I’m talking about the war years

Puzzledandpissedoff · 05/04/2020 12:57

Thanks for the BBC piece, Pelleas - I hadn't seen that so it was interesting to know

And yes, I realise the "RF's own charities" publish figures, but was looking for something a bit more objective

chomalungma · 05/04/2020 12:58

Some people like them others don't, but you can't say that because people share a different view to you that they have been brainwashed

Not sure about being brainwashed - but there are a lot of positive stories in the media about them.

You've got to do something pretty bad to get a negative story about the RF into the media

Unless you are Megan Markle - because then the media hate you
Or unless you are Prince Andrew and you do a disastrous interview about your links with a sex offender.

Like I said - they will slowly destroy themselves from the inside.

Clavinova · 05/04/2020 12:58

Surely 'brainwashing' is something like;

'Oh, Jeremy Corbyn!'

Pelleas · 05/04/2020 12:59

I agree, age played a part in the QM's popularity. She was seen as a sort of universal twinkly-eyed Granny because she had a winning smile and head-tilt. There's no evidence that that was her real character.

Clavinova · 05/04/2020 13:03

was looking for something a bit more objective

Charities Aid Foundation research;

"CAF research shows that these royal patronages can be vital for charities, with one in eight people saying that the patronage of a member of the royal family makes us more inclined to give money to a charity."

Mummyshark2019 · 05/04/2020 13:04

Do you think her servants are still serving her whilst she is in isolation in her castle? Maybe in full hazmat suits.

Pelleas · 05/04/2020 13:05

with one in eight people saying that the patronage of a member of the royal family makes us more inclined to give money to a charity.

Then do seven in eight people say it makes them less inclined? Doesn't sound like a win to me!

chomalungma · 05/04/2020 13:06

CAF research shows that these royal patronages can be vital for charities, with one in eight people saying that the patronage of a member of the royal family makes us more inclined to give money to a charity

I can believe that. Look at the people who buy the same clothes that Kate buys for George or Charlotte.

Clavinova · 05/04/2020 13:09

Pelleas
Is that your excuse for not giving any money to charity?

audreysview · 05/04/2020 13:09

Mamamia Obviously it’s not to the same extent but it is still a form of brainwashing. Granted we have free speech as they don’t, but there will be people in N Korea that don’t agree with their undemocratic system. But just like here, we also have had an unelected monarch since birth......it’s been ingrained in us, we even had to stand to the national anthem in cinemas as children ffs.

So because it’s a system that has always been in place, we’ve never known different and the royal family have always been held up an an exemplary family who we should set our own standards by, it is a form of brainwashing, that we couldn’t survive without them Thats why when you get the likes of William and Kate phoning from their ivory castles and telling hard pressed hospital staff how much they’re appreciated or when the queen addresses the nation today a lot of people will hang on to their every word and get excited by it. It’s sycophancy at its worst. These people are no better than us.

VeganVeal · 05/04/2020 13:11

The Queens speech, what times that on? I love that film

Likefootball · 05/04/2020 13:12

It may not be compulsive viewing , but if it hammers home to the older generation,many of whom were bought up to respect the monarchy , the importance of isolating then it will have achieved some purpose.

Pelleas · 05/04/2020 13:12

Ha ha, Clav ! I must admit I tend to judge by the CEO's salary when deciding where to donate, rather than the patronage or lack thereof.

Flip

1 2 ··· 14 15 16 ··· 31 32