Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
LakieLady · 05/04/2020 09:49

Not to be morbid but what would happen if the queen dies during all of this?

We'd be spared the expense of a full-on state funeral.

The tv would be wall-to-wall royal mourning shite (remember what it was like after Diana died?) and C-19 would slip down the news agenda.

Charles would be king, unless he decided to abdicate in favour of William (unlikely imo, he's been waiting a long time for his turn).

They've probably got the plans for the coronation already in hand, and they're usually a good few months after an accession, so that would be unlikely to be affected unless coronavirus is still an issue several months down the line (and, frankly, if that's the case I don't think anyone will be that fussed about an election anyway).

CendrillonSings · 05/04/2020 09:49

That’s very simplistic.

And also very true.

Where does her family’s right to rule come from?

Well, initially by conquest and heredity, and then in more recent centuries the status of the sovereign has been confirmed by successive Acts of Parliament.

I believe a few books have been written on the subject over the years...

chomalungma · 05/04/2020 09:50

Go ahead and prove your place in the line succession, and we may yet see Queen Chomalungma the Mumsnetter ascend the throne in outlr lifetimes

Line of Succession is not what you said though. You said 'heirs'.

Genetically speaking, we can all trace ancestors back to Royalty. And Royalty can trace an ancestor back to poor working class peasants.

The Queen and the Windsors are only there because Victoria got to the throne - and she was only FIFTH in line to the throne. If things had been different, we wouldn't have even heard of Queen Elizabeth and the rest. But there would be adoration for someone else.

Of course,if I was Queen, I'd have this country sorted Grin

Noodlenosefraggle · 05/04/2020 09:50

Her brother-in-law the Duke of Windsor, having scurried off the throne to be with Mrs Simpson, was Hitler's much preferred choice of token sovereign.
Yes and without Wallis Simpson he would have been king during the war. A nazi sympathiser on the throne and absolutely nothing we could have done about it. What if George turns out like his great uncle Andrew? We'd be stuck with him until he died. Trump will be gone in 4 years max.

derxa · 05/04/2020 09:52

Go ahead and prove your place in the line succession, and we may yet see Queen Chomalungma the Mumsnetter ascend the throne in outlr lifetimes Grin I remember when Danny Dyer did his WDYTYA programme which proved his royal lineage Grin. Oh the outrage on MN! It was hilarious.

Noodlenosefraggle · 05/04/2020 09:54

And it could ba argued we should be digging up the Stuart line if we want the rightful heir on the throne 😁

chomalungma · 05/04/2020 09:54

A nazi sympathiser on the throne and absolutely nothing we could have done about it

I would like to see Monarchists argue against that - it would be interesting to see how or if they respond.

A Monarch has power and influence.

If the Monarch didn't believe in what a Government was doing and tried to use their power and influence to stop it, is there a problem with that?

Noodlenosefraggle · 05/04/2020 09:55

Even though they were all pretty terrible too!

CendrillonSings · 05/04/2020 09:55

If it’s a monarchy, you’re stuck with them.

If it’s a democracy, you have the power to vote them in and out.

Jesus Christ - except we do live in a democracy! If you want to abolish the monarchy, all you need to do is have a party win a General Election on a manifesto of abolishing the monarchy.

As a matter of fact, however, every party to ever win a General Election has done so on a manifesto of keeping the monarchy.

The monarchy thus has explicit democratic consent, renewed at every General Election.

QED Smile

chomalungma · 05/04/2020 09:56

And it could ba argued we should be digging up the Stuart line if we want the rightful heir on the throne

I think the Saxons have a claim - as they were robbed of it in 1066.

chomalungma · 05/04/2020 09:57

As a matter of fact, however, every party to ever win a General Election has done so on a manifesto of keeping the monarchy

Was that in the Conservative manifesto?

Mittens030869 · 05/04/2020 09:58

A lot of people, especially older ones in my experience, will want to watch.

There are a lot of generalisations on here. Not all those of 70+ care for the RF. My DM doesn't whereas my MIL does.

I don't have much time for most of them, but I've always had respect for the Queen, who grew up during WWII so does know what she's talking about when telling us we're in it together. Plus, like the 70+, she and Philip would be at serious risk if they were to catch COVID-19. (Although I get the cynicism about her self-isolating in a castle and not in a one bed flat in London.)

At any rate, she is the Head of State, and as such it is appropriate that she should address the nation.

FWIW, I do believe that, after her death, it would be right to have a debate about whether it's time to become a Republic and have a referendum on the issue. But that's a debate for another time.

chomalungma · 05/04/2020 09:58

QED

Grin
audreysview · 05/04/2020 09:59

If the Monarch didn't believe in what a Government was doing and tried to use their power and influence to stop it, is there a problem with that?

Massively so.

chomalungma · 05/04/2020 10:00

At any rate, she is the Head of State, and as such it is appropriate that she should address the nation.

I totally agree.

TheLadyAnneNeville · 05/04/2020 10:00

They, the Royals, are so very (very) far removed from real life and what’s going on. I don’t mind if she gives an address. Or not. I mind that “they” have palaces/residences/properties ALL OVER THE UK and we still have people living on the streets, whilst this Black Death equivalent, creeps forth.

I guess they can’t help it. We allow them their privilege.

Remember how HM The Queen behaved after Princess Diana’s death? There was outrage that she didn’t address the nation. Eventually, she did but I think was shamed into it.

CendrillonSings · 05/04/2020 10:03

Don’t be stupid - if no change to the status quo is intended, of course there’s no need to spell it out in black white.

There was no manifesto commitment to retain “England” as the name of “England”, either - that’s because only a change to the status quo would necessitate the use of ink.

derxa · 05/04/2020 10:05

At any rate, she is the Head of State, and as such it is appropriate that she should address the nation. Totally agree. What more is there to say about this at this juncture.

chomalungma · 05/04/2020 10:06

Don’t be stupid - if no change to the status quo is intended, of course there’s no need to spell it out in black white

Make your mind up - when you said it was in the manifesto, it wasn't.
So a lie.

Meanwhile.

What do think about the possibility that we could have had a Nazi sympathiser on the throne in WW2 and there would have been nothing we could have done about it?

People notice that you haven't answered that question. Because you don't answer difficult questions.

Littlemeadow123 · 05/04/2020 10:08

The poor woman can't win. Just last week someone was on here complaining because she hadn't made a speech.

Crazylately · 05/04/2020 10:09

Nothing, except it is too little, too late and no doubt will be just as deeply insincere and meaningless as the last address to the nation that she was forced into.

audreysview · 05/04/2020 10:10

so does know what she's talking about when telling us we're in it together.

But that’s just it, we ARE’NT in it together at all. The billionaire queen is certainly not in it together with the masses. Far far from it, and so what she lived through the 2nd world war. So did my parents who were both in the forces. The hardships they endured during and immediately after the war were huge. The queen had to be seen doing something, hence the much used coverage of her pretending to fix engines. It was all PR even in those days, she hardly deserves praise just because she happened to be alive in those days.

The queen hasn’t a clue about the hardships of ordinary people. She’s going to be reading from a script prepared for her. Like everything in her life really, everything done for her.

CendrillonSings · 05/04/2020 10:10

Make your mind up - when you said it was in the manifesto, it wasn't.
So a lie.

The absence of an explicit change to the constitutional status quo in a manifesto has the same effect as retention of the status quo.

Are you capable of understanding that simple legal fact?