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.

@Seventhascent

No apologies for me then Derxa? Were you following thread guidelines when you made an incorrect personal comment about me?

I would normally let it go as tit and tat arguments in the middle of a thread are incredibly tedious for other posters , but I was rather offended by your words, especially as I work in a rural community.

Surely the whole point when posting on here is that you don't know the people you are making comments about. Sorry but it's contrary in the extreme to use that as an excuse for causing offence!

If you were offended then I apologise. It's nothing to do with you but farming is under attack from all quarters. 'area of outstanding natural beauty' sends me into a complete rage I'm afraid. Along with 'rewilding'

@MyOhMySimon

Well I see you're a mind reader and still on this hate thread you loathe so much but just for the sake of others who're reading...

I'm trying to connect the dots between the pp's post and her stand against abolishing the monarchy.
Perhaps, she's saying "exactly" to something completely different but to me, is she saying that since Nicola can inflict a lot of damage before she's voted out, it's better to keep the monarchy? If so, I think that it's simply because they haven't decided to inflict damage (yet). We're at their mercy if they do because they can't be voted out.

However, rather than jump to conclusions like some people, I decided to pose it as a question for clarification.

Is that okay by you? @Evesgarden

Just here to give balance.

And honesty @MyOhMySimonyou dont need to give an incorrect patronising break down of my opinion.

Are you this passive aggressive in RL or only on internet forums?

Your mental gymnastics are Olympian level. A stellar career awaits you in politics.

Err I was trying not to sound too direct so as not to jump to conclusion and offend but good to know you prefer a more forthright approach. That's my forte. I'll remember to use it on you and anyone else who prefers.

Please don’t respond with your usual ploys of pretending not to understand or putting words in my mouth.

Usual ploys? You mean we've been at something like this before? Where else have I displayed this mental gymnastics? You know me from somewhere? Or are you another mind reader? Ah yes, the hall monitors.

Also how have I put words in your mouth? Isn't what I did the very definition of not trying to put words in your mouth by ASKING you to clarify what you mean? Did I state what you meant on your behalf? Talk about mental gymnastics.

She”, ie me, is saying that the ability to vote someone out is no guarantee that they won’t inflict untold damage before that happens. If you believe a democratically elected head of state is potentially less damaging than a monarch, it’s demonstrably untrue.

Ah this is what i thought you were saying but had to ask to be sure. Forgive me for not jumping to conclusions. I'll just do so next time and say what I want to say, which is: Well you're talking complete nonsense then. Absolutely no one has said a politician can't inflict damage. Do you not think any of the PMs we've had has inflicted damage? Do you not think we know that? The main point is that they CAN be voted out. Again, they can inflict damage with or without the RF. The RF can inflict damage too if they want but we can't do anything if they do. The institution is unnecessary.

If you believe a democratically elected head of state is potentially less damaging than a monarch, it’s demonstrably untrue.
I've said this before, its not about it being less damaging. It's already bad and not having them won't make it any worse. The institution is unnecessary and makes a mockery of equality and democracy.

oh well, pretty much the same baffling flagwaver views as a year ago. Maybe the thread started after the post-conviction Yougov poll will be a bit different.

The institution is unnecessary and makes a mockery of equality and democracy.

And I pointed out several posts ago that we don’t even have authentic democracy when electing politicians so there’s absolutely no prospect of it with a head of state. But that’s clearly too inconvenient to address.

@Blossomtoes

Perhaps, she's saying "exactly" to something completely different but to me, is she saying that since Nicola can inflict a lot of damage before she's voted out, it's better to keep the monarchy?

Your mental gymnastics are Olympian level. A stellar career awaits you in politics.

“She”, ie me, is saying that the ability to vote someone out is no guarantee that they won’t inflict untold damage before that happens. If you believe a democratically elected head of state is potentially less damaging than a monarch, it’s demonstrably untrue.

Please don’t respond with your usual ploys of pretending not to understand or putting words in my mouth.

Quite.

@ChurchofLatterDayPaints

oh well, pretty much the same baffling flagwaver views as a year ago. Maybe the thread started after the post-conviction Yougov poll will be a bit different.

I dont own a flag and I've never waved a flag for the RF.

Well, talking about "hate thread" but only here for name-calling. Just realised I'm wasting words on hall monitors. No wonder - I could explain myself from now till tomorrow and the two would twist my words to suit their agenda.

Not today, Satan.

Moving on...

@Blossomtoes

The institution is unnecessary and makes a mockery of equality and democracy.

And I pointed out several posts ago that we don’t even have authentic democracy when electing politicians so there’s absolutely no prospect of it with a head of state. But that’s clearly too inconvenient to address.

This.

I dont want one person to head out country. The Monarch can't decide the laws so isn't all powerful, an elected official isn't head of state so isn't all powerful. No one gets too big for their boots. It works.

And that @MyOhMySimon is my point.

@derxa

Despotic state = Nicola Sturgeon's rule of Scotland

I can well imagine my Scottish nationalist-leaning Glasgow shipyard worker granddad, RIP, absolutely detesting Sturgeon; although possibly not for the same reasons as me.

But we'd both agree that the monarchy has absolutely no business having 'subjects'.

@Blossomtoes

The institution is unnecessary and makes a mockery of equality and democracy.

And I pointed out several posts ago that we don’t even have authentic democracy when electing politicians so there’s absolutely no prospect of it with a head of state. But that’s clearly too inconvenient to address.

No, actually it's addressed by quite a few people in this thread and previously.

FPTP needs to go and the electoral system needs to be replaced.

There has to be a full overhaul of our political institutions but nobody really wants to get started, all the more so because of Brexit, Covid and Toryshambles.

www.electoral-reform.org.uk/take-action/

www.republic.org.uk/britains_daft_constitution

The fact that we are currently seeing someone avoid legal processes, purely because of his fortune of birth, must make even the most devoted royalist have some doubts about the concept of and the democratic reality of a monarchy.

@derxa

Despotic state = Nicola Sturgeon's rule of Scotland

What on earth??????????????

We're here on this thread talking about the Royal family, as part of that the lack of democracy in UK general elections has been mentioned. Namely because of the FPTP voting system.

In the Scottish Parliament, the D'Hondt system is used whereby some MSPs are elected by FPTP and the rest by this particular form of PR.

If FPTP only was used, only about a dozen MSPs would be of parties other than the SNP. Instead it's pretty much fairly distributed across the percentages. It's not perfect but it's pretty proportional in terms of how people voted. (As an aside I really dislike the way many SNP supporters criticise the likes of Murdo Fraser for "getting in on the list" and come across as wanting FPTP because their Party is in ascendancy at the moment, but that's another matter.)

Anyway. The Scottish elections were four months ago, so it's not even as if they were four years ago and the political landscape has changed completely and an election is now needed to reflect the new state of affairs.

Yes, the current make up of the Scottish Parliament is not how you would like it to be. Yes, the Scottish Government is doing things you do not agree with. That's how it works.

But to say Nicola Sturgeon rules Scotland and rules it as the leader of a despotic state is absolutely ludicrous. How can anyone discuss the monarchy with you when you A. Come out with stuff like this and B. Try to derail the thread with it.

If you were offended then I apologise. It's nothing to do with you but farming is under attack from all quarters. 'area of outstanding natural beauty' sends me into a complete rage I'm afraid. Along with 'rewilding'

I understand those issues Derxa but why not address those rather than make personal (incorrect) comments? And yes I was offended so will accept your rather grudging apology!

@Blossomtoes

The institution is unnecessary and makes a mockery of equality and democracy.

And I pointed out several posts ago that we don’t even have authentic democracy when electing politicians so there’s absolutely no prospect of it with a head of state. But that’s clearly too inconvenient to address.

But this has been addressed, particularly on the first thread.

You're absolutely correct about the UK Government, the whole charade from top to bottom is a cesspit. In their defence, the RF is only doing what it can get away with, just like many of our politicians. And because the whole set up is corrupt to its core, it's made easy for them to do so.

"If you were offended then I apologise. It's nothing to do with you but farming is under attack from all quarters. 'area of outstanding natural beauty' sends me into a complete rage I'm afraid. Along with 'rewilding'"

You're absolutely right about this. And I can see why you may think that Charles with his interest in farming could be a good figurehead.

However, I'd urge you to think more widely about the system of governance in the UK, and the non democratic nature of a RF. When people feel reliant on an unelected person with soft power, who because of luck has an interest in this (he could have been a climate change denier and nothing anyone could have done about it), to help save a national and vital industry, then we're in a worse mess than I feel most of us realise.

and the non democratic nature of a RF. When people feel reliant on an unelected person with soft power, who because of luck has an interest in this (he could have been a climate change denier and nothing anyone could have done about it), to help save a national and vital industry, then we're in a worse mess than I feel most of us realise.

Spot on. You said it better!

Oh, and btw, another thread about ducks has reminded me that the Queen owns pretty much all the unmarked swans.

I mean, WTF!

There is also, believe it or not, an official role connected with this: Queen's Swan Keeper.

@HarrisonStickle

"If you were offended then I apologise. It's nothing to do with you but farming is under attack from all quarters. 'area of outstanding natural beauty' sends me into a complete rage I'm afraid. Along with 'rewilding'"

You're absolutely right about this. And I can see why you may think that Charles with his interest in farming could be a good figurehead.

However, I'd urge you to think more widely about the system of governance in the UK, and the non democratic nature of a RF. When people feel reliant on an unelected person with soft power, who because of luck has an interest in this (he could have been a climate change denier and nothing anyone could have done about it), to help save a national and vital industry, then we're in a worse mess than I feel most of us realise.

Yes your comments make sense but it comes to something when the only people sticking up for the family farm are Prince Charles and Jeremy Clarkson.

Not just swans! Since 1324, during the reign of King Edward II:

"all sturgeons [except Nicola obv], porpoises, whales, and dolphins are recognised as 'fishes royal': when they are captured within 3 miles (about 5 km) of UK shores or wash ashore, they may be claimed on behalf of the Crown. Generally, when brought into port, a sturgeon is sold in the usual way, and the purchaser, as a gesture of loyalty, requests the honour of its being accepted by Elizabeth."

The monarchy seems to do everything within its power to defend its own existence and I'd be fascinated to know if any of the individuals involved occasionally have a dark night of the soul and wake up at 3 am and think "it's my duty" or "it's what they people want". Is that how they justify it to themselves I wonder? I imagine that is what they will have been told all of their lives and they will have received a lot of counsel and obsequiousness that won't exactly have been unbiased. They will get used to certain aspects of their privilege too I suppose. It must almost be mental torture knowing that you are an ordinary failing human being inside. And having to "fake it" in public. But perhaps aristocrats don't "do" introspection

To be fair it can't be an unadulterated joy to wake up knowing you are born to be the monarch. And all that implies , just dawning in your adolescence. I don't think all the privilege and wealth would make up for loss of privacy and never knowing if your friend or staff member will sell something about you to the papers.

I think you can see the cracks showing a little in Charles and Edward. It's interesting that the Queen is admired because she doesn't appear to be the least bit conflicted! I wonder why that is?

Anyway, my point is that threads like this are justified because it does make us think about the "will of the people" on which the monarchy depends.

I'm pretty sure Australia will decide to become a republic after the Queen is gone. And I wonder if the UK will get a vote? And if so how will that happen? Will it be a referendum after Charles has ascended to the throne or before? (Coronations take a few months to organise I think.) Will there be campaigns representing either side? Will overseas citizens be allowed to vote? It's all unprecedented territory. Fascinating though! I would love to know if anyone has an idea how it would theoretically come about? Who decides if we get a vote in the first place for example?

@Whinginadeville

What a vile thread it's also the unpleasant minority shouting the loudest

This - as usual on Mumsnet. Luckily, those of us that live in the real world realise that opinions on Mumsnet are just minority rantings most of the time.

it comes to something when the only people sticking up for the family farm are Prince Charles and Jeremy Clarkson

Indeed it is, and I think it's because the UK is one of the most corrupt States in the world. However, we are the experts at PR (this thread highlights that) and fooling the world into thinking we are a beacon of democracy. The wheels of that particular bus have only started to come off because Brexit is shining an unwelcome torch into the true machinations of power and corruption in the UK.

However, I'd urge you to think more widely about the system of governance in the UK, and the non democratic nature of a RF. When people feel reliant on an unelected person with soft power, who because of luck has an interest in this (he could have been a climate change denier and nothing anyone could have done about it), to help save a national and vital industry, then we're in a worse mess than I feel most of us realise.

^^Totally agree with this! Farmers are the true custodians of the land and in most cases get less and less reward for it.

Gosh, I hardly think the UK would have a vote in whether or not Australia ditches the monarchy! A country deciding how to move forward on this issue is none of the UK's business.

Barbados has dropped the Queen with no input from the UK, and Jamaica could be next, with the majority of Jamaicans wanting her removed.