Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think the royal family are a bloody embarrassment

999 replies

MariaAngustias · 12/09/2021 09:53

Just that - why are we paying for this bunch when we could be spending the money on essential services? Let the Queen continue then after her just get rid of the whole bloody lot of them. We have and alleged paedo, a whinging multi millionaire in his 30's moaning constantly, an allegedly corrupt heir to the throne meeting dodgy russians for money....... just go, enough. Seriously - this is all Jeremy Kyle for poshos.

OP posts:
PeriWrinkles · 13/09/2021 08:41

@TrueCrimeWave

Presumed innocent until proven guilty is simply a legal principle within criminal trials to the effect that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution

It ought also to be how decent people react when others are accused of wrongdoing.

No need to “presume innocence” but a simple benefit of the doubt would be sufficient.

But I suppose “paedo prince” is a much more exciting narrative for the hard-of-thinking.

Decent people take court papers when served, probably because they've got nothing to hide, and don't run off to mummy's palace and have shooting parties.

Decent people don't take us all for mugs by lying through their teeth on national tv and then refusing to answer any more questions.

So obviously a rational - or in your words "hard of thinking" person would assume he's still lying.

felulageller · 13/09/2021 08:44

Off with their heads!

Snog · 13/09/2021 08:55

😂 at "Jeremy Kyle for poshos"
I don't want a monarchy, they give a bad message to the country, that privilege should be born into.

queenofarles · 13/09/2021 09:53

The Versailles argument is very Funny! Abolish the monarchy but will use their legacy to keep all these palaces going Grin . So why get rid of them in the first place .

TheKeatingFive · 13/09/2021 09:55

So why get rid of them in the first place

Because they’re an outdated and undemocratic form of government.

The fact that Versailles still generates money is a bonus and is only referenced to counter the ‘oh they generate tourist income’ argument, which is pretty daft to begin with,

Realyorkshiretea · 13/09/2021 09:56

@queenofarles

The Versailles argument is very Funny! Abolish the monarchy but will use their legacy to keep all these palaces going Grin . So why get rid of them in the first place .
Because then we can open the palaces for tourists and make a shitload of money while not having to pay for the freeloaders that live in it. Win win, surely?
Jaysmith71 · 13/09/2021 10:03

So the options, in order of probability, most likely first, are:

  1. Have your von Battenburg cake and eat it: Stick with The Firm for fear of something worse.

  2. Restore the Commonwealth, with the powers of Head of State vested in the Lord Speaker. (Tricky with the appointed HoL, so maybe elect that as well while you're about it.)

  3. Abolish by Act of Parliament, following on from a constitutional convention and some manner of new arrangement to be ratified by Referendum. (Those always go the right way.)

  4. Parliamentary Coup, not exactly off with their heads but off to West Norfolk and be done with you. (Loyalists rally round the deposed monarch, who has friends in the military, doesn't end well.)

  5. Return to the Act of Sucession and get someone else in and the People's Monarch: David Attenborough. Olivia Colman. That sort of thing.

queenofarles · 13/09/2021 10:11

Versailles was almost sold off , most of its valuable furniture was sold , it was in a very bad state and if it wasn’t for the Americans and their money it would’ve been lost forever. The French didn’t even try to save it Grin

The Bolsheviks did exactly the same thing.

It’s a very weak argument .

I’m just intrigued , do people genuinely think that all the money will be put into good cause? Just like the £350M going to the NHS?

ApplesinmyPocket · 13/09/2021 10:12

@QuizzlyBear

We've bred ourselves a nation of cap-doffers and boot-lickers - I truly believe that Brits are only happy if their 'betters' are telling them what to do.

What else could explain the Tories being voted in repeatedly, despite being utter twats to the average working man/woman?

Why else would we HAPPILY accept the concept that a single family is somehow deserving (purely by virtue of their birth) of their position at the very top of society's heap? No qualifications, no questions, just people we are meant to curtsy and bow to. Bizarre...

I totally agree with this. Always amazed to see so many on MN apparently happy that there are people who are BORN their betters and to whom they must curtsey and call by some ridiculous made-up title, as if they are more than descendants of landgrabbers and thugs who seized power and, amazingly, have kept it and passed it down with their "subjects" complicit in their own servitude.

Your Majesty! doesn't that sound utterly silly? Not quite as silly as Your Highness, perhaps... Grin

TheKeatingFive · 13/09/2021 10:16

It’s a very weak argument

It’s simply a counter to the much weaker argument that the Royals generate tourist revenue.

Deposed royals generate even more tourist revenue.

What the French or Bolsheviks were trying to do isn’t the slightest bit relevant to this silly sideshow argument. They weren’t overthrowing the monarchy so that in 300 years people would pay money to visit Versailles. That was just a small fringe benefit. Is that not staggeringly obvious?

PeriWrinkles · 13/09/2021 10:24

@queenofarles No of course the money won't magically transform the country, but we can stop wilfully giving so much to 25-30 people when there are 65 million of us.

No matter how many crowns and fake medals you stick on them, these people are, as pp suggested, nothing more than sleazy grifters and their enablers.

Hawkins001 · 13/09/2021 10:24

[quote MariaAngustias]@Hawkins001 yes I do read and I am well informed thanks for asking[/quote]
Fair point,

queenofarles · 13/09/2021 10:38

I agree that something seriously needs to be done when the Queen is gone. But what exactly ?

Back to the palaces arguments, I bet Other Palaces won’t be open, they’d be either used as government buildings , closed due to upkeep costs , and lesser ones sold off to foreigners.
There will always be someone saying let’s sell and use the money Wink.

BigGreen · 13/09/2021 10:39

Yes innocent until proven guilty is correct in Andrew's case. However, Andrew definitely showed poor judgement in continuing to be friends with a convicted paedophile. Also, if my husband stood like that with his arm around a 17yo girl I would think he was a total sleazebag. And then seriously, trying to evade being served papers by getting his security team to refuse them? This is all pretty disgusting behaviour. Andrew is not a moral authority and should not be presented as such.

KeepSmiling89 · 13/09/2021 10:43

Not read everybody's posts and no idea how the practicalities would work but I agree with everything you said OP....that is all.

longwayoff · 13/09/2021 10:55

They are a bunch of lazy, entitled, skivers and you wont get rid of them without a crowbar. I've just had to read a large amount of the Diaries of Chips Channon, an American arriviste who chiselled his way into the British aristocracy and hung on with his teeth firmly embedded in the backsides of the Great and Good, adoring them as only an American could. If you're not calling for the tumbrels to roll by the time you've read half of them, then read to the end. Utterly obnoxious as are all his companions.

PeriWrinkles · 13/09/2021 10:55

Have a referendum!! Just because people are fond of making glib jokes about how the last one turned out doesn't mean we shouldn't actually have one in this case. Italy had a referendum, they thought their monarch was complete pants and hated him for his ties to fascists, so off they went into exile and his family was only allowed back in the country in 2002. No Italian I've ever met gives a shit about their ex-RF, so why are Brits apparently still so obsessed with monarchy?

Ask the people: exactly how long do you want to keep funding these lying sleazeballs?

puffyisgood · 13/09/2021 10:56

They are indeed loathsome, both individually and, especially, collectively, but I don't see that there's much that could be quickly or easily done to get rid. Getting rid of their constitutional role would, Brexit style, take up a stupifying amount of decision-making bandwidth in return for limited benefits, and clipping their wings financially would be near-impossible given how much of their wealth is technically 'private' [though of course in terms of work the family has done nothing other than royaling going back some thirty-odd generations - all of their wealth is the pocketed proceeds of past royalling].

The best and simplest things we could do would all be small fairly token changes , starting with immediately end all bowing, curtseying etc [make them punishable by imprisonment in the tower, if needs be].

'Prince' and 'princess' could become titles bestowed only on the children of monarchs or of senior royals in the direct line of succession, and could become something that is given up on [say] a 21st birthday, so e.g. Prince Andrew could have become plain old Andrew Windsor at some point in the early 80s. It'd IMO somehow have been far less insulting to us as taxpayers and 'subjects' for plain old Andrew Wilson to be using mummy's cash to hightail it round the globe with scum like Epstein than it was for a guy who we're supposed to call "your highness" or "your grace" or whatever other nonsense it is.

Financial scrutiny could be increased to strengthen the presumption that royals will pay for their own stuff - as noted above, there's so much 'private' wealth sloshing around the family that they'll remain impossibly rich for the foreseeable future, but allowances could be trimmed to the point that it's unlikely that yet more land and property etc being added to the pile.

Realyorkshiretea · 13/09/2021 11:14

I don't see that there's much that could be quickly or easily done to get rid. Getting rid of their constitutional role would, Brexit style, take up a stupifying amount of decision-making bandwidth in return for limited benefits, and clipping their wings financially would be near-impossible given how much of their wealth is technically 'private'

Easy. We get a civil servant or similar to carry out the ceremonial duties every year.

StoneofDestiny · 13/09/2021 11:16

We're paying for round the clock security for 21 members of the royal family

Yes, outrageous. We should just let them get assassinated or kidnapped

Or let them take their chances like the rest of us - who are more at risk of burglary, car crime, mugging, rape and random terrorist attack than they are. If you've ever been part of a royal visit and saw what time and money goes into covering every eventuality of their safety, you'd soon recognise joe public are far more at risk by just stepping out on the street than they ever are!

StoneofDestiny · 13/09/2021 11:19

Yes innocent until proven guilty is correct in Andrew's case. However, Andrew definitely showed poor judgement in continuing to be friends with a convicted paedophile. Also, if my husband stood like that with his arm around a 17yo girl I would think he was a total sleazebag. And then seriously, trying to evade being served papers by getting his security team to refuse them? This is all pretty disgusting behaviour. Andrew is not a moral authority and should not be presented as such

And if this was anybody else, in a public service job certainly, they'd be suspended until an investigation cleared them and their employers wouldn't be helping them dodge the investigation!

PeriWrinkles · 13/09/2021 11:23

Short-term glitchy decision-making bandwidth for long-term royal-free superfast much cheaper wifi, sounds good to me!

GADDay · 13/09/2021 11:23

I feel sorry for the Queen. She has, rightly or wrongly never stepped away from her role. Whatever our personal opinion of her, she has worked like a trojan for the firm.

I totally agree OP, the rest are a total waste of space (bar possibly William). They should all be made to be 100% independent. No houses, funding, travel, protection - nada. This is 2021 - the whole premise of a Royal Family who all swan around living an excessive life whilst pensioners freeze in the winter, is just wrong.

StoneofDestiny · 13/09/2021 11:24

*Versailles was almost sold off , most of its valuable furniture was sold , it was in a very bad state and if it wasn’t for the Americans and their Versailles was almost sold off , most of its valuable furniture was sold , it was in a very bad state and if it wasn’t for the Americans and their money it would’ve been lost forever. The French didn’t even try to save it grin

The Bolsheviks did exactly the same thing.

It’s a very weak argument .
money it would’ve been lost forever. The French didn’t even try to save it*

The Bolsheviks did exactly the same thing.

It’s a very weak argument

It's a strong argument - having been to Russian palaces and museums and Versailles etc, I can assure you they are huge tourist draws without a royal being in residence. The British Palaces are mainly open when there is no royal in residence.

Get them open as museums, thecroyals have enough private residences to keep the wolf from the door for generations of singers to come.

Hawkins001 · 13/09/2021 11:28

From reading the thread, does anyone have any facts, figures, ect that prove e.g. Levels of tourist s , details of tourists in other countries and the various attraction s, then levels of costs vs revenues ect things like that , that help give a detail breakdown ?

Swipe left for the next trending thread