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 ··· 15 16 17 ··· 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:

FunkyKingston · 05/04/2020 13:15

I’m talking about the war years

Of which you'd have to be pushing 90 to have any living memory of how she completed herself in the blitz. She was also far from universally popular and she and the the King were booed on some of their inspection visits to the east end.

FunkyKingston · 05/04/2020 13:15

Completed - comported

Pelleas · 05/04/2020 13:21

Of which you'd have to be pushing 90 to have any living memory of how she completed herself in the blitz.

But for anyone born in the 70s or earlier, 'the war' was a still a relatively recent thing in their childhood, and still much talked about by parents/grandparents who had served or lived through it, so people do have impressions based on their own family histories - it's not as though we're talking about the Napoleonic Wars or the Battle of Hastings.

CathyorClaire · 05/04/2020 13:22

but you can't say that because people share a different view to you that they have been brainwashed

Brainwashed, no. Doggedly obstinate in dodging valid points and questions, inexplicably yes.

derxa · 05/04/2020 13:23

the royal family have always been held up an an exemplary family who we should set our own standards by You must be joking.

MockersxxxxxxxSocialDistancing · 05/04/2020 13:26

People at the time knew the score better than today. Much made of the Royal Family and their ration books, less about the off-ration foods such as venison, pheasant etc, and the back-doors of the Savoy, Ritz etc which were the most valued customers of the black marketeers.

As for Princess Elizabeth joining the ATS, it's not as if she was going to be landing on Sword Beach with the Coldstream Guards deployed all around her for protection.

CathyorClaire · 05/04/2020 13:34

these royal patronages can be vital for charities

How about the Patron's Lunch fiasco where Peter Phillips uncontested tender raised approximately half of what he trousered in 'arrangement fees'?

audreysview · 05/04/2020 13:34

derxa exactly, it is a joke isn’t it. They’re the opposite of exemplary, that was my point.

CSIblonde · 05/04/2020 13:37

I think maybe the elderly who still see her as a figurehead will find it a comfort. For me, I don't see the point really. The Monarchy are good for tourism but need to get their act together in every other way re accountability, antiquated & ridiculous protocol dictating behaviour & events & seriously inept PR.

MockersxxxxxxxSocialDistancing · 05/04/2020 13:38

...yes, the tourists. Because France with no royalty has no tourists at all.

Pelleas · 05/04/2020 13:40

It's by no means all 'the elderly' who see the Queen as comforting. My parents are anti-monarchists and you should have heard my late grandfather (who served in WW2) on the subject.

1981m · 05/04/2020 13:51

I think a lot of the older generation will appreciate it and I can see why people would expect her to talk.

I personally have no interest and won't watch it. I think it's hypocritical for her to sit in her giant palace telling how she knows there will be financial insecurity whilst having none herself. She should give some of her personal wealth to the NHS as a jester rather than delivering a speech.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 05/04/2020 13:51

"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"

Very illuminating I'm sure, but not at all what I asked about
I'm not interested in PR spin, but objective, quantifiable evidence that whatever the RF "help to raise" exceeds the costs of having them involved at all - especially, as in Cathy's excellent example, when it comes to more junior members

To be clear I'm perfectly willing to be convinced about this either way, but I just don't know so wondered if anyone else does?

Experimenopause · 05/04/2020 13:56

This crisis has highlighted how royals are setting examples in flouting all the rules set by the elected government.
Ditch and get done with the lot.

yorkshirebloke1 · 05/04/2020 13:56

If you can not say anything nice, stay silent, It will do no harm and perhaps will do more good than people moaning about her making a speech.

Pelleas · 05/04/2020 13:58

If you can not say anything nice, stay silent

Are you new to Mumsnet?

Experimenopause · 05/04/2020 13:59

yorkshirebloke
How about ‘if you have nothing better to do, at least don’t do a speech’?
There you go. Corrected it for you.

Mistystar99 · 05/04/2020 14:01

She is the Queen, peasant! I won't be watching it either, but I appreciate her putting the effort in.

TheLadyAnneNeville · 05/04/2020 14:06

Well, as Boris Johnson said recently ...”the Royal Family are untouchable”...

I bet they’re allowed out of their shoeboxes more than once a day to exercise.

Experimenopause · 05/04/2020 14:06

What effort misty? I receive at least five videos per day from various forwarded message.
A lot of people love to see themselves talking. I can bear them and delete as they are not the queen. The reason we are questioning the use of royal family is that she is the queen. That is the whole point here.

I wonder if we had an elected president, would she/he get away with moving to country homes with family? I don’t think it will be that easy.

Hugt · 05/04/2020 14:12

Surely being in their country residences allows them to sheild better, sperate the households up (ie. Prince charles didnt pass it to others, and use less staff?

To counter the above im a hcp, and am glad she is doing it. It will reach a chunk of people that borris wont, and provide reassurance to some.

Its okay that it wont reassure everyone, but to some people it will be helpful, thus its worth a go isnt it?

Whats the harm? She cant win, she either stays silent and is criticised or speaks and is patronising?

LaurieMarlow · 05/04/2020 14:20

If you can not say anything nice, stay silent

Yes, let’s take leave of all critical thinking whatsoever.

All hail our gracious majesty who I’m sure will have plenty of useful advice to dispense from her castle. Hopefully we get another glimpse of the gold piano.

LaurieMarlow · 05/04/2020 14:22

Surely being in their country residences allows them to sheild better, sperate the households up (ie. Prince charles didnt pass it to others, and use less staff?

Why would it mean any of that? . Surely they’d have been better staying put like the rest of us in terms of containment.

That certainly wasn’t the view taken of the non royal mortals who wanted to disappear to their holiday homes.

Why are the royals different?

derxa · 05/04/2020 14:24

I thought you were Irish Laurie

Experimenopause · 05/04/2020 14:24

Hugt
Sorry but then that rule applies to everyone who has second home.
Also, I don’t have a problem with there speech. My problem is this family doing ‘only’ speeches.

Flip

1 2 ··· 15 16 17 ··· 31 32