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.

@Blossomtoes - thanks for the apology!

@Hortibunda

Republicans seem to think it’s sacrilegious for anyone to disagree with them! To the point where some charmer questioned what anyone who had the temerity to disagree with them was doing on this thread.🙄

I didn't see that post. I don't think the majority of posters on the republican side have been particularly disrespectful to monarchists at all. (They saved their derision for Prince Andrew!)

I certainly saw the one calling this thread "vile"!

@Hortibunda

No one knows the lies the poster is making up now. It could have been any post, re-imagined to suit their agenda.

I saw a pp asking this poster what their intention was on this thread but it was during an ongoing 'argument' where, as usual, their point wasn't clear to the poster who asked. HarrisonStickle did say 'those sort of silly ideas were not worth given the title of "arguments".' Perhaps that's right.

Good that you saw the post calling this thread 'vile' and I for one wondered why a poster was still on this thread they so loathe and have called a 'hate thread', and said as much to them after they decided to twist my post and call me daft, etc. To which they replied 'they're here to create balance', yet it's mainly been conspiracy theory-worth accusations, etc.

Who knows if that is what those who seem so paranoid they'd twist the meaning of posts are calling 'questioned what anyone who had the temerity to disagree with them was doing on this thread'. By this, that would mean only two people have thought YABU to the thread title. Because no one else has been "questioned" in that way.

I know I didn't see any post in the manner that poster has framed it. Perhaps, they could point to the post, so we can refresh our memory.

I think the true cost of the RF is more than whatever we're told it is

A very valid point

I'll say yet again that it's not just about the money, since alternatives could waste just as much, but it's really frustrating when folk speak of the Sovereign Grant as if that's all the monarchy costs us. The big one of course is security, but countless other examples exist and I'm sure, as seemingly intelligent people, some of their defenders must have thought of them

So I'm left wondering why the same claim is thrown out time and again, and if the intent is to cloud the issue, what the motivation is for doing that

I also like the challenge of the possibility that I might change my opinion!

I like that too. The intelligence on the feminism boards changed my mind about surrogacy and a couple of other issues too. I also think it’s important that threads like this don’t become an echo chamber.

Perhaps, they could point to the post, so we can refresh our memory

Happy to dm it to you.

You singled out Kate but all the royal women are attacked for their choices in every aspect of their lives.

On this thread? I crticise Kate because, when you look at the court circular, she doesn't do much. She comes across as a freeloader.

The Queen is criticised because of her privilege, shielding Andrew, tax dodging and interference in legislation. I don't think Anne has been criticised here, someone said she likely did have some sense of duty like the Queen. Sophie, Beatrice and Eugenie have barely been mentioned. Camilla's been criticised because some feel she's lazy. The Queen Mother for her debts and transferring assets using a tax dodge to avoid inheritance tax.

Charles has been criticised for being entitled and out of touch, William for being entitled and lazy, Edward has been scarcely mentioned, Philip because of his racism and entitlement, Andrew we need say no more. Harry for getting into Sandhurst not on merit but just because of who he was. Likewise any member of the family given a place anywhere that is usually reserved for those who've got there through merit not position.

I'd say criticism hasn't been exclusively directed towards the female members, and it hasn't been based on their personal choices, but on their privilege and how they use that privilege.

I suppose a lot of small things have culminated in a decisive mindset from me, and having a Monarch at all has become anathema

FWIW I very much respect this, since adopting views after looking at a situation in the round seems to me a balanced thing to do

Personally I've been a republican for most of my long adult life, and not on the basis of any one person or incident but because I've an ideological objection to the whole institution. I appreciate not everyone shares this view, but for those who do - plus those coming to it - the RF really are the gift that keeps on giving

@ChurchofLatterDayPaints

Asking a poster why s/he insists on churning out the same tired and oft-refuted unsubstantiated arguments in defence of people who lie, steal and abuse teenagers is not in my view "offensive in the extreme", but each to their own.

Hyperbole is a lazy but effective weapon for some people. Luckily, all the posts are still here for people to read and make up their own minds.

Derxa, no RF woman has been "singled out", they've collectively been slated for the different ways they misuse public funds.

The men have been completely roasted. Deservingly in many posters' views it would seem.

@derxa

However, over recent years that's changed. It wasn't even Andrew that changed it. I remember the photo of the Queen in front of a gold piano, I think it was her Christmas message two or three years ago, and I felt physically sick at the ostentatious nature of it, how on earth did she feel it was appropriate? It didn't feel Christian at all, and she purports to have great faith in her god, and I think has mentioned Jesus, too, in messages to the nation. That really struck a sour note. You changed your mind because of a piece of furniture?

Yes @derxa, that's right. eyeroll

I appreciate not everyone shares this view, but for those who do - plus those coming to it - the RF really are the gift that keeps on giving

That’s unarguable. Which is why my defence is of the monarchy, not the current royal family. And why I want to see some pretty radical modernisation. The amount of time, money and upheaval involved in getting rid of it altogether when the country’s already on its knees makes no sense to me.

On this thread? Years of personal attacks on all the female members of the Royal family. It's quite legitimate to attack their deeds and words IMO but all the rest of it? Some posters are just personally vicious and act like playground bullies.

Gold piano or not... isn't it always the straw that broke the camel's back?
My defining moment was this....

Maitlis interview 16th January.

This picture of PA and his mother going to Church, him grinning ear to ear 19th January. With no sympathy to the victims and no regrets of the friendship. The Queen did not have to do that.

I felt differently from that moment on.

The amount of time, money and upheaval involved in getting rid of it altogether when the country’s already on its knees makes no sense to me

Seriously Blossom it would take decades. If some sort of process were started it just doesn't happen just like that! The unravelling and unpicking of it all would probably span 20 years in my estimation.

Years of personal attacks on all the female members of the Royal family. It's quite legitimate to attack their deeds and words IMO but all the rest of it? Some posters are just personally vicious and act like playground bullies

Bloody hell derxa

I cannot believe you wrote that. I just have two words to say to you.

Meghan and Harry.

Absolutely nothing in comparison to what has been said here and elsewhere on them.
Vile disgusting personal comments. There is one I would like to quote here that was said about Meghan but to be honest, I would be annihilated if I repeated it.
I never saw you come out and say.... hang on that's a bit much, this is personally vicious.

But hey.... maybe Meghan deserved it

@Roussette

The amount of time, money and upheaval involved in getting rid of it altogether when the country’s already on its knees makes no sense to me

Seriously Blossom it would take decades. If some sort of process were started it just doesn't happen just like that! The unravelling and unpicking of it all would probably span 20 years in my estimation.

Precisely my point. It would cost billions too. I can come up with a huge list of things I’d rather see that time and money used for.

As many billions as Brexit?

@Roussette

As many billions as Brexit?

At least. Probably more.

@Roussette

But hey.... maybe Meghan deserved it

Oh no @rousette has turned this back to round another Meghan thread...

Dont feed it people.

@Evesgarden

'It' ?

I more than anyone do not want this to be an M&H thread. However, I am allowed to take issue with someone who takes issue with the vicious playground bully attacks on female members of the RF, whilst obviously excluding Meghan Markle from that statement.

Anyway, back to the thread.

What do you think the costs would involve, Blossomtoes?

I know we can only surmise, but for me I feel that if done in a gradual way, the costs would be offset by the savings.

I will say that other reform has to be made first. Brexit has been a shambles because of our unfit for purpose political system, so yes dismantling the monarchy with that same structure in place would also be shambolic.

My preference would be:

1. Change to proportional representation for MPs
2. Move Parliament to a modern building and construct the physical part of it to a nonconfrontational model
3. Abolish House of Lords
4. Do we need an upper house? If so, elected on different terms to MPs
5. Change Head of State model

Derxa Accusations of misogyny are valid because of what is required of royal wives. Put up and shut up. Adultery permissable for men and not for women.

Ableism - well sorry but think what many people could do given an Eton or Cambridge education compared with what they have in reality done with it.

And accusing posters of snobbery towards the royal family is frankly laughable. Seriously? That is the definition of a contorted argument!

I think it would cost an eye watering amount because the monarchy is, in one way or another, bound up in so much in this country: the judiciary, land management and ownership, political process, the military, currency, the postal system, the commonwealth, charities, heritage assets and art, huge portfolios of property, religion - the list’s endless.

Disentangling it would be a gargantuan task. It would involve setting up a new department to oversee it and recruiting hundreds of civil servants. Doubtless the big four management consultancies would take a chunk too. It would take decades, if not centuries, to recoup the costs.

A slimmed down monarchy could easily be done without any of the other points being addressed.

So that could be a short to medium term compromise until the other aspects change, however long that takes.

From the 1832 Reform Act (where a few more people got the vote) to the Representation of the People Act 1928 (where almost everyone did) was almost a 100 years so I'm not holding my breath!