Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Abolishing the Monarcy.

880 replies

Helendee · 17/02/2021 12:45

Good or bad idea and reasons for your opinion?
I don’t feel strongly either way but I am curious about what aspects of becoming a Republic are more beneficial than the UK’s stable current system.

OP posts:
Thewithesarehere · 21/02/2021 21:34

@VinylDetective

This question?

Can we please have some facts and your reasoned explanation of why perpetuating the British monarchy with its scope for abuse of power is a good thing?

Since we’ve established that the monarchy has no power to abuse, I think it’s answered, don’t you?

You are a classic example of ‘keep repeating a lie until you start believing it is true’ @VinylDetective. There have been a large number of posts on this thread that have shared the reports on exactly how RF has been influencing parliamentary laws through this back door. And you still keep repeating the same point again and again.
VinylDetective · 21/02/2021 21:39

TBF there's probably not much actual power that's open to them to abuse without provoking a political storm at least not overtly but that's not to say the potential isn't there in the form of the sole prerogative

Thank you. At last.

Abuse of position is a different matter.

Again, absolutely right.

PersimmonTree · 21/02/2021 22:00

@CathyorClaire. They have FOI exemption, ie carte blanche to say and do whatever they like, and then lie about it. The secrecy surrounding them is impenetrable. Disclosure of their financial reports is open to all kinds of abuse, and they can only justify public outrage at e.g. Charles' overuse of helicopters by saying "well he's the Prince of Wales so suck it up, plebs!"

Bit more than a prerogative!

turquoisewaters · 22/02/2021 08:48

I wouldn't mind if Princess Ann was still around as she earns her keep and doesn't have a massive sense of entitlement

Exactly, retain the ones who earn their keep and are up to the job.

Why jeopardise a whole institution for a few who may not be up to scratch for whatever reason?

turquoisewaters · 22/02/2021 08:52

Perhaps the best thing is to keep it, but slimmed down to just the direct line of succession, with a vastly reduced property and wealth portfolio

But why should they be stripped of their property and wealth?

turquoisewaters · 22/02/2021 08:55

If my son were accused of what Andrew is, and there was the sort of evidence against him that there is against Andrew, and the story he gave was as weak and unbelievable as Andrew's is... I would not be supportive of him

We know that this very rarely happens. Mothers tend to favour and believe their children when push comes to shove. See what's happening with Covid and Us4Them parents, etc. I'm not condoning this attitude, but it's often the reality.

VinylDetective · 22/02/2021 08:55

@turquoisewaters

Perhaps the best thing is to keep it, but slimmed down to just the direct line of succession, with a vastly reduced property and wealth portfolio

But why should they be stripped of their property and wealth?

They wouldn’t be stripped of their personal wealth and property and they’d continue to have access to the trappings of the office so the result wouldn’t be substantially different.
Destinyknown · 22/02/2021 09:03

Get rid of all of them
It's archaic and I don't like or want to have to give special treatment to a rich, spoilt family. It's weird. I've always hated the concept of the monarchy so would love for them to go.

PersimmonTree · 22/02/2021 09:11

@turquoisewaters

I wouldn't mind if Princess Ann was still around as she earns her keep and doesn't have a massive sense of entitlement

Exactly, retain the ones who earn their keep and are up to the job.

Why jeopardise a whole institution for a few who may not be up to scratch for whatever reason?

@turquoisewaters.

Define "job" in the context of unelected royals. If it is a job, it needs hire and fire criteria and public accountability. Otherwise it's corruption.

Who gets to decide these criteria?

And then, if the monarchy is an institution, who decides whether it's "up to scratch"? Currently they can decide.

Don't you like democracy?

Roussette · 22/02/2021 09:15

The public wrongly decide if 'its up to scratch'.

You're either 'in' or you're 'out' mostly determined by DFail reporting.

PersimmonTree · 22/02/2021 09:32

That's just it: the public don't decide. They aren't allowed to decide.

The RF decides what it can and can't do and whether it wants to be a publicly-accountable institution or not. They are unelected, they are there because of some medieval divine-right-to-rule bollocks. Yet due to a legal exemption they can withhold and distort information about how taxpayers' money is spent and subvert morality as they please.

Why do people in the 21st century think this is acceptable?

CathyorClaire · 22/02/2021 09:55

[quote PersimmonTree]@CathyorClaire. They have FOI exemption, ie carte blanche to say and do whatever they like, and then lie about it. The secrecy surrounding them is impenetrable. Disclosure of their financial reports is open to all kinds of abuse, and they can only justify public outrage at e.g. Charles' overuse of helicopters by saying "well he's the Prince of Wales so suck it up, plebs!"

Bit more than a prerogative! [/quote]
This is all very true and they are all very good reasons for abolishing them but they're an abuse of position, not actual power. There's nothing stopping them making full disclosure on all matters voluntarily but they choose not to. Hiding behind legislation that enables them to get away with it isn't good enough and a government with any guts would repeal it.

We have however been fed (and often lapped up) the line that they are symbolic heads of state with no real say in what goes on. The failure to abolish the sole prerogative however unlikely it is to be used proves this to be a lie.

Roussette · 22/02/2021 10:00

That's just it: the public don't decide

Yes. I meant in the court of public opinion which can influence decisions on occasions!

CathyorClaire · 22/02/2021 10:02

Exactly, retain the ones who earn their keep and are up to the job

Can you define 'keep' and 'job'?

turquoisewaters · 22/02/2021 10:05

Extended family members are even actively commoditising the brand al la Hollywood exile

That's hardly the Queen's fault though

CathyorClaire · 22/02/2021 10:14

That's hardly the Queen's fault though

Nothing stopping her taking back the wedding present titles.

rawalpindithelabrador · 22/02/2021 10:26

@CathyorClaire

That's hardly the Queen's fault though

Nothing stopping her taking back the wedding present titles.

Exactly. But she won't. She loves her nonce son and Harry.
ResIpsaLoquiturInterAlia · 22/02/2021 19:12

How the British royal family makes money

ResIpsaLoquiturInterAlia · 23/02/2021 12:00

Queen’s cousin jailed for sex attack on sleeping woman at his Scottish castle

Read more: metro.co.uk/2021/02/23/queens-cousin-jailed-for-sex-attack-on-sleeping-woman-at-his-scottish-castle-14129516/?ito=cbshare
Twitter: twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

VinylDetective · 23/02/2021 12:46

[quote ResIpsaLoquiturInterAlia]Queen’s cousin jailed for sex attack on sleeping woman at his Scottish castle

Read more: metro.co.uk/2021/02/23/queens-cousin-jailed-for-sex-attack-on-sleeping-woman-at-his-scottish-castle-14129516/?ito=cbshare
Twitter: twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: www.facebook.com/MetroUK/[/quote]
This is commonly known as clutching at straws. Do most people even know if they’ve got a cousin twice removed, let alone who they are? I certainly don’t.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 23/02/2021 14:43

They wouldn’t be stripped of their personal wealth and property

And so they shouldn't ... unless it turns out to have been acquired from public money, in which case good luck to anyone trying to dig into it

... and they’d continue to have access to the trappings of the office so the result wouldn’t be substantially different

Well they have any number of "privately owned" palaces and possessions (but see above) so they could probably hold onto those, but what else did you have in mind?
I've no doubt it would suit them just fine to go on charging the taxpayer for anything they could get away with, but that doesn't mean it should happen

PolkadotZebras · 24/02/2021 02:37

@Buccanarab

My only issue with the monarchy is you can't really usurp them anymore. In the good old days I could round up a bunch of my mates, storm Buckingham Palace, chuck old Queeny off the roof and take the throne for myself. Now I'd probably get arrested before even setting off!

As such I'd be happy for them to stay as long as there was a contest once a year to challenge them. I've already planned it out, it's called The Usurper's Games and the rules are as follows.

Every year the ruling monarch get to select a secret champion to represent them in the final - no one gets to know who the champion is or what the final challenge will be until the very end.

There will be preliminary regionl rounds, open to everyone and consisting of wipeout style challenges (these would be split into categories and tailored to ability so we don't end up with a bodybuilder competing against a 70 year old woman). There will be a total of 256 regional winners who go to the finals.

Once regionals are done we move on to the finals. Where the 256 regional winners will compete in a completely random set of knock out events. One week it might be chess, the next might be f1 racing, the following rodeo riding, there really is no limit to what might happen. But over a period of 8 weeks these 256 contenders will be whittled down to 1 ultimate usurper.

The ultimate usurper will then have the right to challenge the queen's champion in the queen's event. So we might have Joe Bloggs fighting Anthony Joshua in a boxing match, Joan Bloggs playing Joanna Konta at tennis or Jimmy Bloggs trying to out cook Heston Blumenthal.

If the usurper wins the queen's challenge they become king or queen and the current monarch and their family is demoted back to normal life.

If we can't have this then I'm all for abolishing the monarchy.

Or just do a Hunger Games style thing each year but with optional participation and the winner who survives can be Queen or King for a year. Apparently we need tourist revenue, and I'm certain that would be a winner. Smile
PolkadotZebras · 24/02/2021 02:41

Did anybody read "The Queen and I" back in the old days? Very funny.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Queen-I-Sue-Townsend/dp/0241958377/ref=mpssa111?dchild=1&keywords=the+queen+and+i+sue+townsend&qid=1614134420&sprefix=the+queen+and+&sr=8-1

lydia2021 · 24/02/2021 02:58

The money would be better spent on those in need. I have no interest in hierarchy.

GreenlandTheMovie · 24/02/2021 05:12

Perhaps there's a case for abolishing all hereditary titles. The RF are hardly the only ones to have excessively arrogant, spoilt members. And Harry really is a brat, in a family thats becoming more known for producing arrogant, badly behaved brats than anything else in recent years.

Britain is such a snobbish country, and it just seems to have so many aristocrats/"trust fund kids. They don't really do anyone or anything any good. Perhaps the UK would be a better country if we got rid of titles. And had higher inheritance tax. But not deprivation of property - that's just a breach of basic rights.