To think the royal family are a bloody embarrassment THREAD 2

[MyOhMySimon]

Carrying on from Thread 1.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4347032-To-think-the-royal-family-are-a-bloody-embarrassment?msgid=110733144#110733144

Haven't seen the OP around, thread 1 is about to run out and someone asked for a new thread.

[quote derxa]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_education[/quote]
What's your point, caller?

We know our electoral system isn't fit for purpose.

humble {grin] [

Have you been at the sherry @derxa?

@HarrisonStickle

On this and on the last thread a lot of the argument for a monarchy seems to be based on "but our electoral system is crap" or "the judiciary needs reform". Or that people are vile to either not want a monarchy or to dislike the people who make up ours.

Yeah that's the same rehashed argument over and over by those who're pro-monarchy. Same response to them each time but the argument repeats itself.

They just have to come out right out and say they like the archaic tradition of self-appointed 'betters' ordained by God to live some of the most lavish lifestyles ever and wave and smile at them on their way to church.

A bit off topic but people keep mentioning "The right schools"

Since 1964, 8 of the 11 prime ministers went to state schools, the exceptions being Blair (Fettes), Cameron (Eton) and Johnson (Eton)

Have you been at the sherry @derxa? I suspect you're not from a 'humble' background,

I'm glad to see this discussion is being had openly.
I for one feel aggrieved that the RF and the press have been cleaning up Charles and make him seem like an dutiful husband or father. How a man can marry a woman knowing full well he didn't love her but simply for breeding and go on to marry the woman he wished to live with, destroying that marriage as well. He's having his cake and eating in the full public glare. He can do as he wishes but he can't be a representative of the people half of them being women and half being men (he helped ruin Camilla's husband's marriage too). So he must skipped. However, William isn't so much better either. The only reputable man of character really is Harry but he must annoy his father so much! Daring to marry for love inspite of the prejudice against his choice of life partner. This is the man who actually found in wars and seeks to help people including disabled veterans.
Charles and William will do anything to be king not for the people but for themselves. They lie to save themselves but refuse to save the truth to save the only mixed race member of their family.
Then William and Kate had the temerity to organise a photo op with black people. Oh my!

I'd like to hear some positive arguments in support of a monarchy, not ones that start with the premise of other institutions being unfit for purpose, therefore... Genuinely positive reasons.

Here's one I thought of. You know where you are. Once the Queen dies, the next Head of State is Charles. Then William. Then George. It's not a lottery like voting is, there are no surprises or upsets. (Unless one of them abdicates, but then it would just pass to whoever was next.)

If the monarchy continues, the Queen, Charles, William and George are what we have

But not what we have to have
If we want to get all historical about it, we could get in a more suitable monarch from elsewhere, as we did with William of Orange and George of Hanover, both times to avoid catholic sovereigns

Then there's the often-touted Sweden, who got in the Frenchman Jean Barnadotte (his descendants are still there) ... Greece, who imported first a Bavarian and later a Dane ... and Spain, who deposed their own Queen and brought in an Italian

It's a bit "out there" I know, but just another example of how things can be done if the will is there

You know where you are. Once the Queen dies, the next Head of State is Charles. Then William. Then George. It's not a lottery like voting is, there are no surprises or upsets

This is why monarchy was valuable in the Middle Ages. That certainty eliminated chaos when the king died, constant war and power grabs. I get why that was important back then. I don’t see why we need that now. But I know that isn’t the intention of your post, sorry.

Except you don't really know, Harrison, because every so often one of them will abdicate, die young or alternatively live till they're 132, go insane etc. So you get what you get but not necessarily what you thought you were going to get, iyswim.

Alien abduction hasn't happened to any of them yet. Maybe that's next. We could lobby some aliens, can they fit more than 1 in the craft do you think?

I think Elizabeth honestly believes she has a duty to uphold the institution of monarchy and she has prioritised that over most other things, for most of her reign. There is a sincerity there. She doesn’t appear to be purely on the make.

I absolutely do not get the same sense from her children and grandchildren. I don’t think they have the same respect and commitment to the institution.

And I think the public pick up on that. So many people today who call themselves monarchists actually mean they like having Elizabeth as HoS.

@derxa

Have you been at the sherry *@derxa*? I suspect you're not from a 'humble' background,

Very working class background here. First generation university as a mature student. Very long lineage of labouring class.

The entire class sytem in this country stinks. That it allows so many of our elected representatives (yes, and the judiciary) to come from the privileged backgrounds they do is abhorent to me.

What is your point @derxa? It's ironic that just after I posted about monarchists' arguments consisting of "I support a monarchy because the electoral system and judiciary are not fit for purpose", along you come with....."look at what schools our prime ministers attended".

Privilege for prime ministers = bad.

Privilege for monarchy = good.

Or are you saying that you don't care if the royal family are privileged because lots of politicians are too.

These bizarre ideas don't even deserve the title of 'arguments'.

@TheKeatingFive

I think Elizabeth honestly believes she has a duty to uphold the institution of monarchy and she has prioritised that over most other things, for most of her reign. There is a sincerity there. She doesn’t appear to be purely on the make.

I absolutely do not get the same sense from her children and grandchildren. I don’t think they have the same respect and commitment to the institution.

And I think the public pick up on that. So many people today who call themselves monarchists actually mean they like having Elizabeth as HoS.

Yes, I agree with you about her sense of duty. For a long time, in fact up till fairly recently, I was one of those people who felt an elected Head of State was better but didn't mind the Queen.

However, with that sense of duty there is also a sense of entitlement. And why not, because if you're going to give up your whole life to do what you perceive to be your duty (and what your god has decreed), then I don't blame her for wanting a few perks in exchange.

The problems arise when I, for instance, consider a palace, a castle, and other properties, unfettered (and solely for you and your family) access to an enormous jewellery collection, and everything else to be the perks. Whereas she believes that not paying tax and lobbying for exemption from legislation are the perks.

She does pay tax.

The Queen is not the only royal with a sense of duty, Princess Anne definitely does, so does Prince William.

The problems arise when I, for instance, consider a palace, a castle, and other properties, unfettered (and solely for you and your family) access to an enormous jewellery collection, and everything else to be the perks. Whereas she believes that not paying tax and lobbying for exemption from legislation are the perks.

Yes, fair.

I also think it’s a bit strange that she didn’t get any of this sense of duty and sacrifice (albeit on her own terms) through to Charles. And also Andrew obvs, but that’s a whole other story.

Anne maybe.

Wills I get no sense of that at all. He comes across as constantly a bit pissed off and massively entitled. There are also quite a lot of underground rumours now that point to a pretty unpleasant personality.

@Plumtree391

She does pay tax.

The Queen is not the only royal with a sense of duty, Princess Anne definitely does, so does Prince William.

She only started paying income tax and capital gains tax in 1993 after forty odd years of being monarch. She's also had a 'monarch to monarch' deal in place since then to not pay inheritance tax (which her mother also had despite not being the monarch).

William has a sense of duty? I disagree most strongly on that point.

@TheKeatingFive

Anne maybe.

Wills I get no sense of that at all. He comes across as constantly a bit pissed off and massively entitled. There are also quite a lot of underground rumours now that point to a pretty unpleasant personality.

Yes, I agree that he comes across as entitled. Both him and Kate.

Although with at least one affair under his belt he is keeping up the male family tradition.

@TheKeatingFive

The problems arise when I, for instance, consider a palace, a castle, and other properties, unfettered (and solely for you and your family) access to an enormous jewellery collection, and everything else to be the perks. Whereas she believes that not paying tax and lobbying for exemption from legislation are the perks.

Yes, fair.

I also think it’s a bit strange that she didn’t get any of this sense of duty and sacrifice (albeit on her own terms) through to Charles. And also Andrew obvs, but that’s a whole other story.

I wonder if it's because her father wasn't the monarch when she was born and only became so when she was 10. So she saw first hand that her father had that sense of duty, too. Although not prepared for it, and with his own difficulties (e.g. his stammer), he stepped up.

If you're born into the succession it may be different. Plus different personalities of course.

I joined www.republic.org.uk as a lifetime member in 2019.

I hope to live to see the abolition of the Monarchy in the UK.

PC on the throne is a step too far for me. Opinion polls (YouGov etc.) consistently poll him and Camilla as very unpopular with the general public.

I am sad for HMTQ that it has come to this, but I believe that she is shrewd enough to know that it has run its course and is now an anachronism.

Why can't we vote for a royal to take the 'head of state position' that way we get a say and we do away with the 'first to fall out of the vagina' model. They do a tenure of xxx number of years? That would cut out anyone unsuitable (Andrew for example) because who on earth would vote for him. If the popular vote is Anne or Charles or William then that's what it is.

I get that if you are a staunch republican it probably won't cut the mustard but it would give us more of a say. I'm certainly not convinced that booting them out and taking back 'what's ours' is going to make the country any better off.

If you're restricting voting to one family how long do you envisage the tenure to last? Ten years would mean eight different people over the average lifetime. Why not allow all nobles to put themselves up for the vote? All the duchesses and earls and marchionnesses and viscounts and baronnesses. Or we could have another It's a Royal Knockout and the Captain of the winning team could be monarch.

BTW people could vote for Andrew in the same way they voted for Boaty McBoatface...

@HarrisonStickle

If you're restricting voting to one family how long do you envisage the tenure to last? Ten years would mean eight different people over the average lifetime. Why not allow all nobles to put themselves up for the vote? All the duchesses and earls and marchionnesses and viscounts and baronnesses. Or we could have another It's a Royal Knockout and the Captain of the winning team could be monarch.

BTW people could vote for Andrew in the same way they voted for Boaty McBoatface...

Can't say I have given it anymore thought than the time it took to post quite honestly but tenure would be longer than 10 years but not as long as 70. Nobles, Duchesses or second cousins twice removed wouldn't meet the voting criteria. Definitely no to to the royal ''its a knockout', the one was more than enough.

If the majority of people voted for Andrew then we deserve everything that follows.

It wouldn't need to be a majority, just the most votes. And that could be pretty few if a number of them decided to stand for election.