Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think the monarchy is regressive and should be abolished?

281 replies

Muezza · 01/06/2022 13:36

The principle of the monarchy, that they are superior people because of the family they were born into/married into is completely regressive and embarrassing for us as a country.

All the hoopla around the jubilee is cringe worthy

OP posts:
strangersthingsepisodefour · 01/06/2022 15:01

What a boring done to death debate.

emeraldjones · 01/06/2022 15:08

At least those in the line of succession have a sense of duty. There's so much they do which is pretty gruelling and boring that we don't see. Yes the Royal family is privileged but so are well known sportsmen, politicians and media stars and there is no guarantee any of them would make the sort of head of state we would want because in the end we would probably vote like the Americans for whoever has the most money to run a relentless campaign or a TV star and goodness knows what we'd end up with. As other PPs have said the rest of the world has tremendous admiration and affection for the royal family. They must be doing something right.

orwellwasright · 01/06/2022 15:10

People who struggle with the monarchy usually want a fairer and more compassionate society but you always see the flag-shaggers popping up with their YOU GOT NO RESPECT YOU HATERS even though the republican's desire is for a lovely country where everyone feels valued not just those born to wealth and privilege. So the opposite of disrespectful hate.

Tbh I've given up expecting some people to understand the debate. It's no surprise that the biggest indicator of politics and where you stand on these sorts of issues is your level of education.

JanisMoplin · 01/06/2022 15:13

emeraldjones · 01/06/2022 15:08

At least those in the line of succession have a sense of duty. There's so much they do which is pretty gruelling and boring that we don't see. Yes the Royal family is privileged but so are well known sportsmen, politicians and media stars and there is no guarantee any of them would make the sort of head of state we would want because in the end we would probably vote like the Americans for whoever has the most money to run a relentless campaign or a TV star and goodness knows what we'd end up with. As other PPs have said the rest of the world has tremendous admiration and affection for the royal family. They must be doing something right.

If you mean America, then perhaps they have respect because they respect anything over a 100 years old. The rest of the world not so much, as we saw on Will and Kate's recent visits. People may be too polite to tell you. I don't voice my general distaste for the royals in public because it offends some.

AllyCatTown · 01/06/2022 15:13

I’m amazed that 70% agree with you. Especially on here which can be conservative. You never really hear from our side so you can think you’re in a minority. I don’t care to engage more with royalists as the arguments for a monarchy are just embarrassing and it’s hard to believe they believe them.

Maytodecember · 01/06/2022 15:14

Mamamia7962 · 01/06/2022 14:59

I am in my 50s and no one has ever come up to me and said they are embarrassed that this country has a royal family!

I’m in my 60s and I’ve been saying it for years.
No matter what the public’s perception of them is, the Windsor family think they are superior and entitled. When Philip died one of them was telling a “ funny” story about them all being in a restaurant and Philip making everyone laugh by throwing food that stuck to the ceiling. I’m sure the people who had to clean up after them were in stitches.

Florenz · 01/06/2022 15:14

"The point is that our head of state should be someone put there following a democratic process, not that we all think Boris should be the sodding president because obviously only idiots would want that."

Boris is the Prime Minister, put there following a democratic process. What makes you think democracy would work any differently in electing a head of state to how it works in electing a PM?

CapMarvel · 01/06/2022 15:15

Florenz · 01/06/2022 15:14

"The point is that our head of state should be someone put there following a democratic process, not that we all think Boris should be the sodding president because obviously only idiots would want that."

Boris is the Prime Minister, put there following a democratic process. What makes you think democracy would work any differently in electing a head of state to how it works in electing a PM?

How can you still be missing the point here?

Florenz · 01/06/2022 15:16

Because there is no point.

CapMarvel · 01/06/2022 15:17

There really is, and it's not a particularly hard one to grasp either.

The Queen-> head of state because her mum and dad had a shag. Accountable to...?

A president-> head of state because the people voted them in. Accountable to those same people.

I can get the crayons out if you like.

MrsTerryPratchett · 01/06/2022 15:20

Boris is the Prime Minister, put there following a democratic process. What makes you think democracy would work any differently in electing a head of state to how it works in electing a PM?

Democracy is flawed. That doesn't make undemocratic processes better.

CathyorClaire · 01/06/2022 15:21

abolishing the monarchy won’t make you any richer

It would however make a substantial difference to the funds available in the public purse.

Beatrixpotterspencil · 01/06/2022 15:22

it's tradition isnt it? And the proles love having someone to look up to.

sst1234 · 01/06/2022 15:22

It’s a non-issue. They have less power than your local incompetent council leaders.

Florenz · 01/06/2022 15:24

"The Queen-> head of state because her mum and dad had a shag. Accountable to...?
A president-> head of state because the people voted them in. Accountable to those same people."
But our current PM is elected whereas the Queen was born into her job. Who is better at their job?

The Queen is accountable to the people. If she wasn't we'd have abolished the monarchy by now.

"It would however make a substantial difference to the funds available in the public purse."
I really don't think it would. Having a President would just add even more to the political gravy train. Politicians cost us many times more than the Royals.

WifeMotherWorkRepeat · 01/06/2022 15:27

The monarchy bring a phenomenal amount of money into the UK through tourism! For example my US colleagues love the Royal Family and are so excited to hear about the Jubilee Celebrations. I also think that on a global platform many people look at the UK’s rich history, castles, pomp and ceremony with envy.
I do think the royals see themselves as superior beings but no more than anyone else with pots of money!!
Lastly, despite what anyone thinks our Queen has dedicated 70 years of service to this country. She has worked beyond when any ordinary person would be expected to and has never put a foot wrong.
I think abolishing the monarchy would be foolish.

SleeplessInEngland · 01/06/2022 15:29

"The monarchy bring a phenomenal amount of money into the UK through tourism!"

This is a myth - our history and culture brings in tourism. The number of people who actually come here because we have an existing monarchy is totally negligible.

MelonsMelonsMelons · 01/06/2022 15:30

I think in an ideal world we’d be a republic but I can’t get massively worked up about the monarchy. There are far bigger fish to fry.

MelonsMelonsMelons · 01/06/2022 15:31

SleeplessInEngland · 01/06/2022 15:29

"The monarchy bring a phenomenal amount of money into the UK through tourism!"

This is a myth - our history and culture brings in tourism. The number of people who actually come here because we have an existing monarchy is totally negligible.

Plus, even if they did bring in loads of tourist money, we’re supposed to be a modern democratic nation, not a bloody Kings and Queens theme park.

MrsTerryPratchett · 01/06/2022 15:32

Lastly, despite what anyone thinks our Queen has dedicated 70 years of service to this country. She has worked beyond when any ordinary person would be expected to and has never put a foot wrong.

That is a lie. Defending her son is the last in a line of missteps.

darisdet · 01/06/2022 15:33

"It would however make a substantial difference to the funds available in the public purse."
I really don't think it would. Having a President would just add even more to the political gravy train. Politicians cost us many times more than the Royals.

That sounds really rather vague. What on earth do you mean. Could you elaborate? How? Why? Examples?

JanisMoplin · 01/06/2022 15:34

Man. The queen certainly put a foot wrong when she paid for her pedophile son's settlement, even if from private funds.
It's such a colonialist, outdated institition. Hilary Mantel had it so right. Must dig up her essay about Kate.

StripeJacket · 01/06/2022 15:35

I agree the Queen worked longer than most, she has pet her foot wrong loads, they have very good PR you are an example repeating the propoganda.

If hypocrite carbon footprint William gets too big for his boots we will let him know, we can tell our elected politicians to tell him to wind his neck in and remember what Happened to the Democrats hopeful - Mr fist Gentleman - Harry.

darisdet · 01/06/2022 15:35

I was beaten to it, answering the tourism myth argument!

Bluueberrryy · 01/06/2022 15:38

CapMarvel · 01/06/2022 13:43

The idea that the head of state of a country is there purely because their mum shagged their dad is utterly absurd.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. Going back generations after generations their ancestors fought and won battles for the crown etc. obviously that hasn't been the case for some time but their ancestors paved the way