To be unreasonably annoyed at Royals at the pantomime

[Gigheimer]

I post knowing I’m totally unreasonable (probably) and you’ll all shout but I got both angry and sad and rage at seeing the press stories of Kate and Wills at the pantomime in the West End.

I’m normally a fan, and of course I don’t begrudge those cute kids a pantomime.

But my kids don’t get that this year, no Santa experiences, no pantomime no fucking nothing because we are tier 3 and if our local pub or theatre ever open again I’ll die of shock.

But we are in the North so who gives a fuck right?

I just have the absolute unreasonable fury tonight.

I haven’t really got over them all dispersing all over the country in lockdown 1. The Cambridges should have stayed in london it was awful of them to up sticks to Norfolk and post those idyllic videos. Totally tone death given what the country was going through. They were like rats on a sinking ship.

I haven’t really got over them all dispersing all over the country in lockdown 1. The Cambridges should have stayed in london it was awful of them to up sticks to Norfolk and post those idyllic videos. Totally tone death given what the country was going through. They were like rats on a sinking ship.

But they were working sooooooooo hard (worlds smallest 🎻).

I know the article is from an anti-monarchy site. With all the huge amounts of sycophantic articles gushing about the Royal Family including 'how hard they work', it is good to read something that redresses the balance. And surely what matters is not whether or not you like the source of an article, but whether or not it rings true.

I'm afraid I just don't buy the idea that the engagements are just the 'tip of the iceberg' of the work they do and that these engagements require countless hours of preparation behind the scenes. I am sure that they do involve lengthy preparation, but most of that would be undertaken by their staff not them. How much preparation are they likely to need for a 30 minute engagement, beyond a quick briefing and rundown of who they are meeting and why?

'You'd miss the royal family if it were abolished. Or rather, you'd miss the money it brought into the economy'. Explain exactly how they bring money into the economy and how much (and don't say 'tourism'). Also, please explain why so many other countries seem to manage their economies perfectly well without a royal family.

What kind of jobs do you want the royal family to do anyway? Stack supermarket shelves?

many people do that kind of work. What makes you think that the royals are above?

As for the economy. Most other countries do fine with tourism after getting rid of their kings. Look at France. If anything, more people are drawn in because you can visit all of Versailles. And even if not, I still don't think it is a right system or are you saying that as long as something generates money, it makes it right? really?

They're overprivileged twats, what do you expect? Incidentally, I checked out that panto and the prices for 4 of us to go would have been around £400, so there's no way ordinary people can afford that anyway if it hadn't been shut.

''You'd miss the royal family if it were abolished. Or rather, you'd miss the money it brought into the economy'.'

Not for one second of one day would I miss them. And as for the money - the pomp and ceremony can stay. The jewels, the castles, the soldiers in their shiny armour etc. all belong to the country. It's not like the Tower of London will be demolished if there's no Queen.

@MariaHairy

How many supermarkets would tolerate workers leaving almost every day to go and do a public engagement? Because a royal's life involves gracing the public with their presence. Tbh, William and Harry would rather be working a 'normal' job. Hence why William worked for air ambulance, Harry for the army. (You keep ignoring this point). Being part of the royal family isn't one lifelong pleasure holiday.

@Theyouttheresayin

Given the fact that a lot of British history is centred around the royal family, no longer having one would definitely take the shine off things.

They're overprivileged twats, what do you expect? Incidentally, I checked out that panto and the prices for 4 of us to go would have been around £400, so there's no way ordinary people can afford that anyway if it hadn't been shut

That is the going rate for the Panto in the West End
And it is filled every year with “ordinary people”

A lot of West End shows are that sort of price and booked out.

'
That is the going rate for the Panto in the West End
And it is filled every year with “ordinary people”

A lot of West End shows are that sort of price and booked out'

I call BS on that - sorry but people on low incomes aren't forking out that kind of money to go to the theatre. Next time you go to a West ~end show, panto or not, have a look around a the demographic.
And I'm speaking as someone who once had a PR/marketing gig looking at how theatre could be made more accessible to more people.

'Given the fact that a lot of British history is centred around the royal family, no longer having one would definitely take the shine off things.'

History won't disappear because a bunch of overprivileged unelected toffs don't get to sign laws. It won't change a damn thing. Henry the 8th will still be talked about, films will still be made about Elizabeth I. Plus there's also a LOT of Brit history centred around the Scots, the Irish, the Welsh etc.Might actually be nice to have a more rounded view of things...

[quote Fieldofyellowflowers]@MariaHairy

How many supermarkets would tolerate workers leaving almost every day to go and do a public engagement? Because a royal's life involves gracing the public with their presence. Tbh, William and Harry would rather be working a 'normal' job. Hence why William worked for air ambulance, Harry for the army. (You keep ignoring this point). Being part of the royal family isn't one lifelong pleasure holiday.[/quote]
Fine. Let’s give HMQ a chance to finish what she started and then let’s give them all their freedom and they can hand back the Duchies, public palaces, dubiously acquired landholdings etc. Obviously they have privately owned estates and private wealth that they get to keep.

Sorted.

@Bookworming

Except that is not British history is it? It is happening right now. And going forwards, Prince Andrew will be a teeny tiny part of that. How much do you know about Queen Victoria's other eight children?

@Fieldofyellowflowers I clearly stated in the future? Did I say it was history now?

Except that is not British history is it? It is happening right now. And going forwards......

And going forwards it will be history

And going forwards, Prince Andrew will be a teeny tiny part of that.

I don't think so and I hope not, if they do they'll still have royalists looking through rose tinted glasses at them!

.... I'll be telling my grandchildren etc, that the monarchy are not decent people.

They can also teach about Prince Charles ruining the mental health of his teenage wife? How his marriage was a sham?

The divorce of Charles, Anne and Andrew?

I know nothing about the history of the royal family, not interested at all!

@Fieldofyellowflowers you're in th cover up sexual abuse "team" are you? Don't teach pupils about it, sweep it under the carpet? Just teach the "naice" bits?

Massive shame on you! That's why girls/women will continue to be sexually exploited and assaulted by "royals or hierarchy"!

They can also teach about Prince Charles ruining the mental health of his teenage wife

If you are going to tell your grandchildren things then at least get your facts straight
Diana wasn’t a teenager when she married and I think it has come to light that others might have been responsible for destroying her MH

How do you know that every single person in the royal family aren’t decent people.

Lots of people get divorced.

I am imagining you telling your grandchildren all about the royal family and them thinking you are completely batty
Sweeping statements and incorrect facts are never a good idea
Especially when it verges into libel.

Oh sorry @Oliversmumsarmy she was 21 when she married and 19 when he started grooming her!

Are you really trying to say Charles and his infidelity didn't cause her MH issues? How deluded are you? How would you like your husband to be shagging else where the majority of your marriage?

Yeah LOADS of people get divorced and LOADS of people suffer MH issues when they've been subjected to the infidelity of their partners for years and years.

And what about Andrew .... what do you think of him? His exploitation of trafficked girls?

Would you honestly be proud of these two as your sons? I wouldn't.

My grandchildren won't think me batty, they like my children will be proud that I don't bow down to awful people because they HRH before their names.

The royal family had a vein of dreadful, exploitive entitlement through their blood, it's awful!

How do you know that every single person in the royal family aren’t decent people.

Oh yeah they're all decent people

Especially when it verges into libel.

Oh shit do you think HRH, is on MN? Will I be sent to the tower, beheaded?

Do you think she's a MN premium member?

Is better name change immediately.

And what about Andrew .... what do you think of him? His exploitation of trafficked girls

But did he?

You can’t say something that hasn’t been proved.

I think your hatred of the royal family is clouding your judgement of the truth.

Re Diana’s MH. Given what we know now I think you have to look elsewhere to what or who tipped her over the edge.

@Oliversmumsarmy what do we know know about Diana's MH?

Do enlighten me, why Charles was a guardian angel and not a nasty adulterer?

The saddest thing aboit the Royals at the pantomime was the false hope it gave. I couldn’t believe theatre was allowed to open and for a mine to, just a moment, the publicity made me think the show might go till Xmas.

Charles has been a good friend of paedophiles and perverts as well....Andrew's misdemeanours and the publicity engendered have taken some of the heat off him (that may be the intention?)

Take Charles' support of convicted paedophile bishop Peter Ball and his long friendship with Jimmy Savile.

I cant believe either that the theatre was allowed to open and the inappropriateness of William & Kate turning up - at a time that the infection & death rates have led to London moving to Tier 3 along with other areas. It does appear as if this was done just to pander to them and their PR exercise, regardless of the risks to everyone involved including W & K's own children.

Theatres were open. Not just for the pantomime.