Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

419 replies

HacketteofHacks · 21/03/2022 12:03

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 .

OP posts:
TheKeatingFive · 21/03/2022 13:23

Worth a read.

www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Divine_Right_of_Kings

myislandhome · 21/03/2022 13:26

How can any intelligent person believe there is such a thing as "royalty"? Yes, there is money, land, power accrued over time..but this self bestowed "royal" thing in terms of elitism is , frankly, bizarre.

Tsuni · 21/03/2022 13:29

Do you think the Queen uses Mumsnet and gets stuck into the "what baby names/Christmas decorations/biscuits are lower class" threads?

myislandhome · 21/03/2022 13:32

@Tsuni

Do you think the Queen uses Mumsnet and gets stuck into the "what baby names/Christmas decorations/biscuits are lower class" threads?
Maybe Gransnet.
DillDanding · 21/03/2022 13:32

I really don't know why we have a royal family. The concept is ludicrous.

RealBecca · 21/03/2022 13:32

Well would you want to have kids with your cousins?

EveryCloudIsGrey · 21/03/2022 13:43

Because otherwise they’d all be inbred

It explain a few things about our royal family if this was the case.

The is no place for a Royal family in modern day society. The whole idea of it is stupid. If any of the royals had any morals at all they would step down. Unfortunately the wealth and ‘power’ has gone to their heads. They are self serving idiots.

I have some respect for the Queen but literally none for any of the others.

The Royal family should end when the Queen dies.

limitedperiodonly · 21/03/2022 13:50

The Queen Mother was a commoner but she was very good at invention including inventing the title Queen Mother when her daughter came to the throne and she didn't want to give up being called Queen Elizabeth while being served vats of gin and Dubonnet.

Princess Diana was posher than Prince Charles if you go back to how long their families had been taking things from peasants.

Thoosa · 21/03/2022 13:56

His/her imagination, plus a misunderstanding of the divine right of kings.

plus an inability to grasp that monarchs exist in non-Christian countries

Christianiaty doesn’thave a monopoly on God. Wink You had realised that other religions have God? Grin

And it is true that most monarchies or royal dynasties justified their position by claiming divine backing or supernatural authority, at least on the early days.

That’s how we got here.

NeverDropYourMooncup · 21/03/2022 13:59

@myislandhome

How can any intelligent person believe there is such a thing as "royalty"? Yes, there is money, land, power accrued over time..but this self bestowed "royal" thing in terms of elitism is , frankly, bizarre.
The word represents the concept of having a leader if you go into the etymology, where reg was apparently 'going in a straight line' and developed into direction/the person to decide the direction, then through a few thousand years, this line concept got into biological succession, through several other languages, men's wish for their offspring to have the same authority, the need for religion to back up the claims to keep them from meeting a similar end to King Duncan in Macbeth (or any number of more ancient civilisations), and somewhere along that line, you get Royalty meaning the people, the leading, the line of inheritance, the religion, the law, the external trappings and it being borrowed to illustrate other concepts, such as 'Hollywood Royalty' to explain wealth and power.

It's a concept throughout human history, this Divine Right of Kings/Mandate of Heaven/the descent from Amaterasu-Ōmikami/etc. And in order to secure position, any newcomers to the role have normally sought to bring religion on their side - and been pretty unpleasant to priests/etc who have questioned it.

We're just a little less head-choppy about the whole business. And it's not as if the non religious ones are any better/more ethical/more deserved.

Thoosa · 21/03/2022 14:03

The Queen Mother was a commoner but she was very good at invention including inventing the title Queen Mother when her daughter came to the throne and she didn't want to give up being called Queen Elizabeth while being served vats of gin and Dubonnet.

She didn’t have to invent anything. It was getting married that got her a royal title (duchess). Then once she became a Queen, she was always going to be a Queen. Once widowed she could have been known as Queen Elizabeth (awkward because her daughter was regnant with the same name), Queen Dowager or Queen Mother (not invented, had been used long before. She was a Queen by marriage for life, though. No need to invent. Kate will be exactly the same.

Clearly a batshit system when marriage or birth determines huge privilege, but a lot of people seem either keen on it or very complacent about it.

SprayedWithDettol · 21/03/2022 14:07

The mental gymnastics required to think that a royal family is a good idea/they are special etc etc must be exhausting.

The sooner they are gone (constitutionally) the better.

Thoosa · 21/03/2022 14:09

@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 .
FWIW I agree with you OP.

Either it’s a incredibly exclusive club of special people with “blue blood” who were specially chosen to be royal, and intrinsically superior and they must all intermarry - internationally but within their caste - OR it’s just a job some particularly fight people who could afford to raise an army centuries ago grabbed because they wanted power and has been handed down in straight lines, as well as some decidedly wonky and disjointed lines ever since. Neither hold up to much logical analysis.

Once anyone at all can marry in, then yes, that’s superficially more egalitarian and better for the gene pool, but it also shows the whole thing up for the nonsense it is. If these people aren’t special, why are they so powerful and privileged?

knowinglesseveryday · 21/03/2022 14:12

@neverknowinglyunreasonable

Having a royal family is inherently ridiculous and we should all grow up and get rid of it.
Quite
lemongreentea · 21/03/2022 14:14

@Blimecory

Where did he get that definition of “predetermined by God” from?
The Queen and all British Kings and Queens before her believe they were chosen for the role by God!
JustLyra · 21/03/2022 14:14

@limitedperiodonly

The Queen Mother was a commoner but she was very good at invention including inventing the title Queen Mother when her daughter came to the throne and she didn't want to give up being called Queen Elizabeth while being served vats of gin and Dubonnet.

Princess Diana was posher than Prince Charles if you go back to how long their families had been taking things from peasants.

She didn’t have to invent it. It was a title long since used - it just wasn’t commonly used because there was no need as there was a clear differentiation from Queen Mary and Queen Alexandra, or Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary.

She was never going to stop being Queen Elizabeth. She stopped being HM The Queen.

lostoldname · 21/03/2022 14:22

Not a particular royalist but interested in what people think should replace them. President Johnson anyone?
We brought back the royal family after a 10 year gap following the Civil War

TheKeatingFive · 21/03/2022 14:25

President Johnson anyone?

Why is this shit always trotted out? Go look up the type of people ROI vote into their presidency.

Susu49 · 21/03/2022 14:26

We got rid of the concept of the Divine Right of Kings when we chopped the head off of Charles I (who was a huge believer in the principle). There's a difference between being anointed during the coronation of a new monarch and dedicating your life to God (as head of the Church of England) and the Divine Right of Kings.

Notions of 'kingship' have changed drastically over the centuries. It isn't correct to say that a "royal" family is one that holds a 'Divine right'. In fact, many members of what we see as the Royal family aren't actually royal themselves (as Princess Margaret was fond of pointing out to her own children and others).

CheeseCakeSunflowers · 21/03/2022 14:30

The way I see it the lineage being predetermined by God, idea is nothing to do with genetics but instead it is about who becomes the next Monarch. So it is more to do with which soul is born into the body of whoever is next in line for the throne.
Thoughts on this are obviously going to be swayed by an individuals beliefs in general. Some will believe that we all end up being who we are totally randomly others may think it was all predestined by God or some other force.

Brefugee · 21/03/2022 14:30

Not a particular royalist but interested in what people think should replace them. President Johnson anyone?

incredibly lazy thinking gives us the boringly repetitive "President Johnson/Blair/May/Thatcher" comments whenever we talk about getting rid of the monarchy. Since we have a PM in the UK, the head of state is a figurehead and need not necessarily be a) voted for by everyone in the country (see Germany for eg) or b) an ex-politician.

My suggestions are people like Tanni Grey Thompson, Floella Benjamin, Prof Mary Beard, Prof Brian Cox - the possibilities are endless

EveryCloudIsGrey · 21/03/2022 14:55

@lostoldname

Not a particular royalist but interested in what people think should replace them. President Johnson anyone? We brought back the royal family after a 10 year gap following the Civil War
We live in a democratic country so I would only support someone who was democratically voted to be our leader. I would support any measures that would make our electoral system fairer so that it didn't favour rich people and so that it minimized nepotism.
Thoosa · 21/03/2022 15:20

President Johnson anyone?

Good god that’s getting dull.

It’s not very politically literate, either.

Thoosa · 21/03/2022 15:25

We brought back the royal family after a 10 year gap following the Civil War

I think if we became a republic again, and got another miserable old git like Cromwell in charge, who banned Christmas, singing and any kind of fun at all, (he was basically a one man Taliban) we would probably just elect a different leader instead of reinstating the monarchy, don’t you?

None of these points are very persuasive @lostoldname

Not unless you’re posting from the 17th century.

lemongreentea · 21/03/2022 15:26

@limitedperiodonly

The Queen Mother was a commoner but she was very good at invention including inventing the title Queen Mother when her daughter came to the throne and she didn't want to give up being called Queen Elizabeth while being served vats of gin and Dubonnet.

Princess Diana was posher than Prince Charles if you go back to how long their families had been taking things from peasants.

she was a horrible snob.
Swipe left for the next trending thread