To think the royal family are a bloody embarrassment

[MariaAngustias]

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.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/17/prince-philip-duke-edinburgh-will-secret-90-years-queen-dignity

And to the previous poster who seemed to suggest there's a way for an ordinary individual to impose the same level of secrecy, again no. Regardless of what rules may apply to other high-wealth individuals or other special cases, the article above clearly indicates that there is a special procedure for the RF, just because they are "royal" (the rule was introduced in 1910 to cover up yet another RF embarrassment): “There is a need to enhance the protection afforded to truly private aspects of the lives of this limited group of individuals in order to maintain the dignity of the sovereign".

Even if the will is revealed, nearly a century from now: “an initial and private process will be undertaken to consider whether at that stage the will may be unsealed and made public”.

and then

"...the private process would involve inspection by the monarch’s private solicitor, the keeper of the royal archives, the attorney general, and by any of the deceased’s personal representatives who may be available..." (ie the queen's cronies).

Transparency, ethics and public accountability are just irrelevances, clearly, in our sham democracy with its non-existent constitution.

We are simply being taken for fools.

How can it not be in the public interest to know which of the royal wasters are getting even more cash and land?

Tell me what power they have.

The Queen successfully lobbied the Scottish Parliament so that Balmoral was exempt from a green energy bill.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/29/scottish-government-refuses-to-publish-details-about-queens-secret-lobbying

It seems reasonable to think this isn't the first time she's lobbied for examption from some law or other.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

The monarch has no ability to change anything

Well, she can't log in to Parliamentary computers and do a cut and paste job on legislation, no, but she has a great deal of power to lean on Parliament to get her own way. Like not paying tax for whoever knows how long.

Someone brought up the proroguing of Parliament and her inability to do anything about it. I doubt she cared much anyway, however publicly going against something would shatter the illusion she is impartial, whereas doing stuff the public won't know about is different.

Charles has had a lot of stick for trying to get legislation changed over the years. He takes that criticism and his mother hides her own interference so the masses continue to believe in the fantasy.

@ChurchofLatterDayPaints

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

I rest my case!

"At least 10 bills relating to housing policy have been subject to Queen’s consent, as have five relating to laws on pensions, seven relating to the NHS and at least two concerning animal welfare. The government gave the Queen an exemption in a 2006 act to prevent the mistreatment of animals, stopping inspectors from entering her private estates."

Well put, Harrison, and in fact the issue of being seen to be impartial is yet another example of them caring about the "image" at the cost of all else

Obviously I get the value of impartiality - even though they're quite happy to interfere when their own interests are concerned - but so much for that other favourite go-to of monarchists, that "they save us from extremes of government"

"At least 10 bills relating to housing policy have been subject to Queen’s consent"

You left out the bit that they're subject to "the Prince's consent" too - as in Charles

With the Queen's Consent (which, handily for them, many confuse with Royal Assent), you might expect it to be vested purely in the monarch ... so I'd love to know whose arms they twisted to get him included in it, and how they can possibly justify this

Not that they need to justify it of course, because few even notice, even fewer bother to ask, and if they do the RF can always bring out that very convenient exemption from the FoI Act

@CathyorClaire

The Royals have to be out and seen

But they don't. A quick glance at the Court Circular will show you many blank days and even weeks in-between exhausting engagements like a morning or afternoon telephone call.

No-one ever wonders where they are.

That's because the lie of "they work so hard" has mesmerised a huge chunk of the population.

What really annoys me is that it seems to be the people who really are working extremely hard in the worst jobs for shit pay and who find it most difficult to make ends meet who are the most susceptible to this nonsense.

[quote ChurchofLatterDayPaints]@sammylady37 Welcome to the latest mumsnet RF discussion, aka Batshit Central. If you are a republican you will get sprayed with it liberally.

Glad you stopped lurking. Perspective from a country whose president is not a national embarrassment would be most welcome.[/quote]
Well we in ROI manage very well without a monarchy.

We have an elected President, whose role is largely ceremonial, but nonetheless important. It’s a 7 year post, after which they need to go for re-election if they wish to do so. Any citizen over the age of 35 can seek a nomination for election. That’s democracy in action.

It always makes me laugh when royalists say that the monarchy is ‘envied the world over’ and that the pomp and ceremony is admired. In my experience, neither is true. I know nobody who envies the British their royals and nobody who regards the pomp and ceremony as anything other than outdated, extravagant and quite bizarre, though admittedly some have a weird fascination with it. My lovely grandmother, anytime we saw royal events on the news and saw clips of people cheering, waving flags, queueing to catch a glimpse (especially on Christmas Day, I mean really, have they nothing better to do on that of all days??) etc, used to say “aren’t the English very gullible really?”. Obviously a generalisation, but there does seem to be a large cohort who fall for the royal nonsense. The ones that I feel most sorry for are those who camp out overnight, in their Union Jack outfits, with all their memorabilia, outside maternity hospitals or palaces etc… all I can think of when I see them is that they’re the modern day equivalent of a Victorian freak show. No doubt I’ll be castigated for saying that, but it’s what I think.

The Royals have to be out and seen

Well surprising as it may seem to some, they are expected to do something for the huge amount of money and privilege they get. But it's hardly work, the sort of thing most of us might pay to do.

All the boring arduous bits of preparing for a visit by the royals is done by their minions.

OMG - Princess Anne has turned up in the area occasionally to visit hospitals, open new units etc etc boring boring boring.
How many primary schools, hospitals, boring repetitive stuff do you do out of a sense of duty pony?
Pure jealousy of rich folk.
I think i'd rather see the really rich folks who can follow their own choice of pasttimes paying a bit more into public coffers. But they're lucky - I'm not bitter and twisted about them.

I've never seen nor heard about an Irish President in my life.
Not that that's a bad thing but I don't think you're comparing like with like.

How many primary schools, hospitals, boring repetitive stuff do you do out of a sense of duty pony?

Well luckily for Anne she's had plenty of time to recuperate from her schedule this summer.

Nine engagements between 29th July and today. The tenth noted her birthday.

Wouldn't she cut back a bit now she's over 70?

u

Wouldn't she cut back a bit now she's over 70?

Strange how cutting back doesn't include dropping a £16k private jet to Italy to see a rugby match.

@Spiindoctor

I've never seen nor heard about an Irish President in my life. Not that that's a bad thing but I don't think you're comparing like with like.

It’s not my fault if you’re ignorant about other heads of state.

And that’s what I’m comparing- heads of state. Like with like.

Not that that's a bad thing but I don't think you're comparing like with like

We’re comparing heads of state.

It’s actually a very similar model to the U.K. with the prime minister being the real leader and the President’s role more ceremonial.

But in the case of ROI, much less expense, pomp, attention. Much less.

I’ve always considered myself a real royalist... but I completely agree with you OP, it’s time they went. This latest lot are a ridiculous embarrassment.

We have an elected President, whose role is largely ceremonial, but nonetheless important. It’s a 7 year post, after which they need to go for re-election if they wish to do so. Any citizen over the age of 35 can seek a nomination for election. That’s democracy in action. He's in the news at the moment, he's turned down an invitation to some shindig in the north.

@CathyorClaire

Wouldn't she cut back a bit now she's over 70?

Strange how cutting back doesn't include dropping a £16k private jet to Italy to see a rugby match.

I love our Scottish rugby royal Princess Anne.

How can it not be in the public interest to know which of the royal wasters are getting even more cash and land?

How is it in the public interest to know what cash and land is being shunted from one “royal waster” to another? It’s staying in the family whether it’s exposed to the gaze of the prurient or not. I’m pretty pissed off that my private affairs are accessible to anyone who pokes their nose in after I’m dead.

It’s staying in the family whether it’s exposed to the gaze of the prurient or not.

No guarantees of that.

@TheKeatingFive

It’s staying in the family whether it’s exposed to the gaze of the prurient or not.

No guarantees of that.

So what? You’re not in the running for any of it, regardless of who it goes to. Personally, I don’t think any wills should be available to the public. It’s an infringement of privacy.