If 'commoners' can marry into the royal family - why have a 'royal' family -

[HacketteofHacks]

I totally respect the Queen and think she's been largely a force for good...
But at work we were talking about the tour that's on now.. my boss pointed out the the definition of a royal family was that its lineage is 'predetermined by God'.
Well that is archaic in itself - my boss (who is no royalist) the. pointed out that once members of a royal family marry commoners they lose this 'untouchable special-Ness'.
I think he had a good point...
He's from Jamaica so hence we were all having the conversation .

@IKnowYouDontTurnTheLightOn do you way that to all rich people that they should give up their wealth
I mean after all many on here will own two homes , I don't own one so should they give me one of theirs to make it fair

The Bill forbidding public protest in UK seems to be perfectly timed to coincide with a changing of the guard in the RF. Hmmm

Interesting point which I hadn't thought of in that context, Myee

Even I wouldn't expect Charles to make such a hash of it that folk would be protesting in the streets, but who can say? Certainly he's engineered other legal issues to suit, so nothing would surprise me

Also maybe some people actually like a little bit of british tradition kept , tourists certainly do as they flock to buckingham palace and windsor castle etc

@IKnowYouDontTurnTheLightOn not a very impartial one though is it
These things never are when its clearly made by a side that wants different
How do you propose we get rid of them ? Just remove them , they own lots of land and things as well which they could then do as they wish with also
Prince charles is slimming it down and it will naturally happen
They are more respected around the world than they seem here on mumsnet
Yet in real life I know nobody who really cares and judging by how many tune in to royal weddings they can't be that disliked
I would imagine there will also be many jubilee parties etc

Its been made very clear that Prince Charles intends to slim down the monarchy

Depends what that would look like though doesn't it?
With Andrew out and Harry gone the RF has been slimmed down recently - though not through Charles's doing - and doubtless that can be spun as "fewer on the balcony"
But once the coronation hoo-haa is over, it could look very different if Charles simply uses it as an opportunity to grab more of the spoils for himself, which is certainly something the media would seize on

@worriedatthistime

Also maybe some people actually like a little bit of british tradition kept , tourists certainly do as they flock to buckingham palace and windsor castle etc

Oh please don’t mention tourism. You’ll have them all frothing about Versailles again.

@Myee not really no one i know wants rid of them or to remove it as it has no bearing on them
Many actually like the royal family
Look at how many watch royal weddings , there will be loads joining in celebrations of the jubilee
Its only on here I see so much hate
I reckon if we had a vote in the uk today they would be kept

@Blossomtoes yes I know but its really not a direct comparison
Wet gloomy windsor to the versailles
Tourists really do come because of a current royal family as its quite unique in this day and age

@Puzzledandpissedoff he has made it clear for years he intends to slim it down
He has enough anyway he owns tons of land and new estates etc that can't be taken away from them like people think
Also the likes of buckingham palace when people say how many homeless could live in it - thats a stupid argument as who would fund that ?'
We have plenty of other empty buildings we could use for this if wanted

@worriedatthistime do you have any actual evidence that tourists become because we have a royal family? I always like a bit of evidence to back an argument .

@RogueBorg just from speaking to people when i worked and lived in london and worked in hotels so spoke to many a tourist
Do you have any evidence to back they would come regardless if we got rid and just had a palace to show ?

@RogueBorg I'm sure there has been some surveys etc done though
If you have ever been to the places and speak to people outside and why they are there that is evidence needed

[quote worriedatthistime]@Myee not really no one i know wants rid of them or to remove it as it has no bearing on them
Many actually like the royal family
Look at how many watch royal weddings , there will be loads joining in celebrations of the jubilee
Its only on here I see so much hate
I reckon if we had a vote in the uk today they would be kept [/quote]
Ah the peasants are always kept outside the gate, and are grateful for a crumb from their overlords.

fabulous evidence!

Of course tourists would still come - look at what they come and see, that's the evidence!

cheaphotels4uk.com/travel-guide/10-popular-attractions-london-number-visitors#:~:text=10%20Most%20Popular%20Attractions%20in%20London%20by%20number,History%20Museum.%205%205.%20Somerset%20House.%20More%20items

A lot of things have been "made clear" by the RF over the years, worriedatthistime - often when something's gone wrong and they want a supportive headline - but that doesn't mean they don't bend or break whatever it is if it suits

@worriedatthistime that's not how evidence works - talking to people AT royal palaces isn't evidence about why people come to visit the UK as you've missed all the millions of people who come here and don't visit royal attractions. That really would be a crap method of collecting evidence .

Well, you live and learn - I honestly didn't know that the British Museum is the most visited UK attraction

As with many of the others which follow it though, I wonder how much of that is because it's free?

Thanks for that link @RogueBorg. I’m really surprised at that.

@Blossomtoes, you're welcome. It's really interesting. I used to do a topic on tourism with my kids when I was a teacher - they always used to guess incorrectly what the most visited places were.

But challenging power structures is a tenement of post-modernist anarchists. So the idea is based around dis-respect.

this is where i absolutely differ. Because either we need the monarchy, as people tell me regularly on twitter, because they are the last bastion of protection against a malevolent government (maybe one illegally proroguing parliament), in which case they have power. Or they are a constitutional monarchy with zero power in which case they are as useful as a chocolate tea pot.

The fact that many countries have moved from a monarchy to a republic, some more easily than others, shows that it can be done if the will is there. What real power structures are there in place that are inhabited by the monarchy that cannot be either dismantled or moved over to a head of state who is chosen rather than born.

The judicial system was mentioned. In what way does the monarchy have any real power (rather than influence) over the judiciary? Come to that, aside of an oath that people read in order to get their shilling (or whatever it is these days, 40 years ago it was 8 quid) and join the military? I met sevaral people in the forces who honestly believed they were there to be the queen's personal bodyguard (yeah, from a cookhouse in deepest lower saxony) but most of them realised it's just as a figurehead representing the state/country.

I am not under any illusion that if her Maj popped her clogs tomorrow we'd manage a fully fledged republic by the time she'd finished lying in state, but i can imagine that if they start now, Charles can be the last of them.

Charles slimming down the monarchy is great. But really it needs to be so slimmed down as to be completely unrecognisable before i'd accept that it is in any way in keeping with what a modern state should be.

The question of them being a public good or not is an interesting one. For sure there does seem to be a genuine belief that they do some good, but for all the talk of the "hardworking" royals and the Queens decades of "loyal service" (at the expense of a functioning family life it seems) nobody really seems able (or willing) to actually point out what those things are. Tangible things.

I do know that there are some individual benefits to visits by one or other of the royals. Even if it's only that a school gets repainted, but i'm not sure they outweigh the alternative of not having them at all.

Look at how many watch royal weddigs
That means nothing. People will go and just about watch anything. Curiosity as much as anything. But I do believe we've all been kind of brainwashed over the years into thinking the royals are special. and superior to normal folk. and they've just always been there. Like a lot of things really, doesn't mean it's right.

@crepesncream I remember in 2011 when K & W got married, myself and a group of friends thought we'd take our kids to Legoland on the day of the wedding as according to the media EVERYONE would be watching the tv!

I've NEVER seen Legoland so packed - it was heaving all day!

i always tune in so i can get a look at the frock, and other clothes, but that's only because i'm really interested in clothes.
But watching the whole thing? I'd rather stab my own eyes

RogueBorg What about when one of Andrews daughters got married, can't remember which one. She insisted on parading through London adding a few million to the security bill. Andrew or his mother could easily have paid for that extra security but saddled us with it instead. The entitlement is shocking.

I wonder if royalists think it's right?