Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
Xpologog · 22/03/2022 13:41

@Brefugee

Where did he get that definition of “predetermined by God” from?

The queen believes that guff which is why she won't abdicate. Divine right of kings - they are chosen by god to be born from the right golden womb.

It is unbelievable in this day and age that this twaddle is still pandered to.

^ This. Won’t be sad to see them go. Outdated, too many hangers on. And how was Camilla predetermined by God?????
Hrpuffnstuff1 · 22/03/2022 13:58

David Starkey's Monarch gives a comprehensive history of our birth as a Nation-state.
This is what I meant by history.
www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLd8OQ6-KwPrZ5QX8C7NxJdtzxmVM0VVpW

Hrpuffnstuff1 · 22/03/2022 14:01

Outdated.Grin

It's the most sophisticated form of human governance ever created.
Ignorance is bliss of course.

Can't believe Russia has been used as an example.
Really, do we want a Stalin or a Putin?

crepesncream · 22/03/2022 14:02

So many people are impressed by the he queen's vow to serve as queen untill death. I mean it wasn't like a great hardship. I'm sure if it was she'd have stood down by now.

Wishingthreestonesaway · 22/03/2022 14:05

The whole concept of a Royal Family is ridiculous. They don't live a family life that many of us know. Their lives are stifled by protocol and they take on advice from the 'men in grey suits'. The faux sympathy for the Queen when Philip died was crazy. They didn't live together. He lived in a vast 'cottage' in Norfolk while she lived elsewhere. I'm sure that even Kate, who was desperate to be a part of it, must struggle. Hence her extreme weight loss. She had a normal body pre RF. Meghan must havre been aghast at the lifestyle, which is stuck in the 1950s. A President could serve a maximum of four years, so if they were awful, they would soon be replaced. Bring on the Republic.

crepesncream · 22/03/2022 14:05

Consequently, it would be nearly improbable if not impossible and even foolhardy to replace it with a republic

No it really wouldn't. Confused

DGRossetti · 22/03/2022 14:11

Generally the less people know about history, the more they think they are monarchists.

They forget that the Saxons used to elect their kings.

IKnowYouDontTurnTheLightOn · 22/03/2022 14:18

"I would argue that the monarch is a complete necessity for political conditions to form a rational nation-state."

Seriously???? How can this statement be taken seriously??? Dozens of incredibly well-functioning democracies across Europe don't have a monarch. The idea we need a hereditary head of state in this day in age is total nonsense. There's nothing rational about a HoS chosen on an accident of birth. There is everything rational about a democratically elected HoS, chosen by the people, removed by the people, replaced by the people.

Of course no one wants Putin as our HoS Hmm I think the idea was mentioned as they removed their royals to replace them with a republic - but it's an incredibly poor example obviously. There are many others that have managed it with no issues and have very progressive democracies.

It's totally doable. Would be entirely bloodless and would lead to progress and a less class-based society which can only be good for everyone in this country (except those tiny few that benefit from the status quo, which I'm assuming you're part of).

crepesncream · 22/03/2022 14:18

There's a book by Norman Baker (former minister of transport) called "What do you do""(what the royal family don't want you to know)".....a factual book that lifts the lid on what really goes on with the royals, the greed, the secrecy, the interference with government for their own benefit etc.

I think it might open the eyes of even the most staunch of royalists if they read it.

DGRossetti · 22/03/2022 14:22

Would be entirely bloodless

doesn't have to be ....

Crimesean · 22/03/2022 14:34

This is the sort of bumf that Prince Andrew genuinely believes - he was outraged that his DDs were going to have to work for a living and not be given permanent royal roles and security, as the only (and I quote) "princesses of the blood".

Brefugee · 22/03/2022 14:45

The Queen doesn't believe in the divine right of Kings. She won't abdicate because she made a vow to serve as Queen until her death.

because god gave her the job

I would argue the sovereign monarch is a concept from which strong ideologies follow. Sovereignty is a fundamental concept of human existence. Britain's influence and power emanate from this form of government.
Consequently, it would be nearly improbable if not impossible and even foolhardy to replace it with a republic. I would argue that the monarch is a complete necessity for political conditions to form a rational nation-state.
Dreams of republican administration will remain just that if the dreamers can offer no alternative to the fundamental concept of monarchial political power.

Charles, is that you? Monumental guff.

You do realise there are several VERY successful nations that don't have monarchies, right?

Zilla1 · 22/03/2022 14:54

@crepesncream it is interesting how the detail of the right to be consulted on new Legislation has then led to lobbying for changes and used for the Crown's benefits when the narrative before was of a self-sacrificing role above the fray acting in everyone's best interests.

Quincunx · 22/03/2022 15:00

Britain's influence and power emanate from this form of government

Good job my keyboard wasn't in coffee-spitting range, I mean do you honestly believe that, previous monarchist poster?

In a way it's true though, as Handy Andy negotiates with arms dealers and corrupt regimes so they buy lots of property in London, launder money and take over football clubs etc. Power, wealth and influence for 1 family = lifelong service to the nation?

Sloth66 · 22/03/2022 15:34

It used to be argued that the RF were our betters.
Problem is now that we can see in many instances, how they are worse. Not just the likes of Prince Andrew, but the duplicity, self interest and sheer greed detailed in Norman Baker’s book , is pretty disgusting given their wealth.

DGRossetti · 22/03/2022 15:38

It used to be argued that the RF were our betters

Your use of the past tense renders your statement partially inaccurate ...

IKnowYouDontTurnTheLightOn · 22/03/2022 15:39

www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/and-what-do-you-do

IKnowYouDontTurnTheLightOn · 22/03/2022 15:40

Agreed. They, and many others, still think they’re our betters. Nonsense of course but a surprisingly widely held belief.

crepesncream · 22/03/2022 16:18

This review of the book."What do you do" puts it far better than I could.

“In total, the taxpayer pays for a hundred buildings, six thousand rooms and twenty acres of roofs. And of course the Queen owns plenty of private property too, notably Balmoral and Sandringham, both bought with public funds, which also qualify for taxpayer support when they are used for official business.”

Ridiculous, bloated, antiquated, greedy, deluded, shameless parasites, are just seven of the less offensive words I‘d use to sum up the royals. Baker clearly feels along the same lines too. From the perfect quotes used in the epigraphs this book hits the right mood and tone from the very first turn of the page.

Baker has a lot to work with here, from the blatant examples of pro-Nazism from Edward VIII and his American wife (the couple received a gold inscribed wedding gift from Hitler) and the fact that Princess Michael of Kent’s father was a Nazi and fought in WWI against the Allies too, it is almost like shooting fish in a barrel. There is the bizarre and antiquated thing known as the honours system, a number of paedophiles, war criminals and dictators have been given various honours over the years, the likes of Kaiser Wilhelm II, Ceaucescu, Mugabe to the likes of Jimmy Savile and Bishop Peter Ball to name only a few.

“For 2001-11, the civil list was set at £7.9 million for each year. This became £13.7 million in 2011. The first year of Sovereign Grant saw support rise to £31 million in 2012.”
But then it continued to rise 2013/14: £36.1 million (up 16.5%), 2014/15: £37.9 million (up 5%) 2015/16: £40.1 million (up 5.5%) 2016/17: £42.8 million (up 7%) 2017/18: £76.1 million (77.8 %), 2018/19: £82.8 million (up 8%).

When factoring in the vast security costs, often for obscure or minor royals “the true cost to the public purse stretches well beyond £300 million a year.”

We see that old Prince Charles alone has 31 medals (for what?) and we learn of his immense hypocrisy in terms of his approach to the environment. His environmental impact from his tax payer subsidised travel alone including his vast entourage and security, puts a clown’s nose on his so called environmental concern.

“It is worth noting that the practice of paying sums to the monarch’s relatives, other than the King’s wife, only started when the present Queen came to the throne in 1952.”

Of course let us not forget the Royal Collection, a public asset, which the palace continues to pocket money from charging the public to see, and only 0.1% of it is ever on a display. Due to the secret and opaque nature it is hard to get an accurate value of its worth, but some estimates say it may be as high as £20 billion.

Then we get the dossier on hapless old Air Miles Andy who is beyond belief and beneath contempt, a repulsive and repugnant parasite with connections and/or business dealings with various dictators, Middle Eastern theocracies, Gaddafi, the Bin ladens and of course old Jeffrey Epstein (In Epstein’s incriminating black book, there was no less than 16 different contact numbers for the royal and 18 for his ex-wife). Among the many sinister and sickening facts around him is that in the ten years to 2011 he cost the taxpayer £4 million, with another £10 million for his police protection. We do know that his mummy gives him £249,000 tax free each year and that he gets £20,000 from a pension, but we don’t know how he and Sarah Ferguson managed to pay for their £13 million ski chalet in Switzerland?...

There are loads of shocking cases in here one dating back in 1962 involved Princess Alexandra (who I admit to having never even heard of) forcing a chartered aircraft she was using for royal duties to divert to Vancouver in order to visit some friends, and then demanded that the tax payer meet all costs, including the clothes she bought herself. The cost of the detour in today’s money was around £200,000 and the outfits around £100,000. The government paid up.

Then there’s the Offshore tax havens, Cash for Access scams, the ever growing unaccountability, Hereditary peerages, immunity from countless laws (not just seat belt wearing and hate speech), exemption from the Freedom of Information Act, the hunting (whilst claiming to be animal welfare advocates), the sneaky lobbying and political interference, the endless freebies, the lecturing people on climate change whilst travelling on private jets with extensive entourages, and using £369 million in order to revamp Buckingham Palace. The list goes on and on.

“The sovereign is not legally liable to pay income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax.”

So what all of this is really saying is that the British royal family are above the law. They have been granted impunity. Their very existence puts a giant dildo on the face of Britain’s idea of democracy, fairness and equality. If we were to see a mob of scroungers who ripped off their country to such a degree anywhere else in the world, we would laugh in pity and condescension. They are a sham that no one is ever supposed to speak out on or challenge. We routinely see that even so called sacred institutions like the BBC and every single British government since she came to the throne are all guilty of sickening levels of sycophancy and brown nosing.

It is beyond absurd that the royal family are allowed to get away with what they still get away in the year 2020. There are so many awful things related to them, that it is hard to know where to start. In spite of worsening global warming, a global financial crises they remain immune and are continue to be subsidised and enriched, granting themselves impunity in almost any situation that pleases them, when it pleases them.

Baker makes another wonderful point when he compares the royal set up to the MPs stealing from the tax payer, “For the royals to use civil list money to buy and help amass a private property portfolio is no different: it is fiddling their expenses.”

I am not sure I have shaken my head in disbelief so much during a book as I did reading this. It is way beyond belief what the British royals get away with. There should be no place for this blatant anomaly, which takes far more away from many than it occasionally gives back to the few. The royal family is a bloated farce of a thing, an absurd, extortionate pantomime stuck somewhere between a tedious BBC costume drama and a crap Monty Python sketch complete with the plummy, self-important English accents.

Hrpuffnstuff1 · 22/03/2022 16:30

@DGRossetti

Generally the less people know about history, the more they think they are monarchists.

They forget that the Saxons used to elect their kings.

Still followed bloodlines mainly primogeniture or firstborn. It's an interesting subject however, the monarch and our fundamental style of governance are going know where.
Zilla1 · 22/03/2022 16:30

'and the fact that Princess Michael of Kent’s father was a Nazi and fought in WWI against the Allies too' it seems unsatisfactory to visit the sins of the father on the children to be fair the Princess Michael and I'm surprised at my saying this. Jeremiah says different to Exodus and Numbers?

For fighting against the Allies, didn't Wittgenstein got a medal and that didn't negate his later lectures nor his contribution to philosophy.

Zilla1 · 22/03/2022 16:31

And I know that's a trivial comment against the substance of what you posted. It just stuck out a little.

JustLyra · 22/03/2022 16:48

There are loads of shocking cases in here one dating back in 1962 involved Princess Alexandra (who I admit to having never even heard of) forcing a chartered aircraft she was using for royal duties to divert to Vancouver in order to visit some friends, and then demanded that the tax payer meet all costs, including the clothes she bought herself. The cost of the detour in today’s money was around £200,000 and the outfits around £100,000. The government paid up.

Princess Alexandra is the Queen’s cousin.

However, she didn’t tour Canada in 62. The Queen Mother and the Princess Royal (Princess Mary) did. I’d put a far bigger bet on it being one of them if that story is anything like accurate.

IKnowYouDontTurnTheLightOn · 22/03/2022 16:50

@Hrpuffnstuff1 why do you think they’re going nowhere? Why are you so wedded to such a ludicrous system? Did you read the book review?

There’s also the travesty that is the Duchy of Cornwall @crepesncream - scandalous theft of property and money and the way he treats his tenants Angry.