Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
orwellwasright · 01/06/2022 15:39

The money issue is a moot point. The royals generate tourist income but this wouldn't significantly reduce because we'd still have the palaces, Tower of London and whatnot.

We give money to the royal family but we'd still have to pay for a head of state. The queen also pays tax on her estates.

Finances aren't really the point - there are arguments for and against.

MelonsMelonsMelons · 01/06/2022 15:39

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.

Never put a foot wrong?

I like the Queen but her handling of Diana’s death was pretty awful until Tony Blair intervened.

Also, expecting the tax payer to pick up the bill for the Windsor Castle fire went down like a lead brick.

MrsTerryPratchett · 01/06/2022 15:41

Bluueberrryy · 01/06/2022 15:38

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

So it's because they are bigger murdering bastards than my ancestors. Not exactly a good genetic stock, then. And let's be honest, 'they' didn't win. It was the poor conscripted peasants that fought and died.

And many of those battles were fought against my ancestors so it doesn't exactly endear them to me.

Florenz · 01/06/2022 15:41

"That sounds really rather vague. What on earth do you mean. Could you elaborate? How? Why? Examples?"
If we had a president we'd have to pay them and all their staff and hangers on. Look at how much America spends on it's president. Plus all the former presidents (currently 5 still living) who still require security etc and are a significant expense.

MrsTerryPratchett · 01/06/2022 15:42

Look at how much America spends on it's president.

There are so many reasons it's different I don't actually know where to start.

PurpleButterflyWings · 01/06/2022 15:45

@Muezza

YABVVVVU to start yet ANOTHER Monarchy-bashing thread. There's one every other bastard day on here now. Tedious, predictable, and pathetic. Another one for me to hide. Doing that in five seconds! Bash and berate them all you like. I won't see it.

MelonsMelonsMelons · 01/06/2022 15:46

Florenz · 01/06/2022 15:41

"That sounds really rather vague. What on earth do you mean. Could you elaborate? How? Why? Examples?"
If we had a president we'd have to pay them and all their staff and hangers on. Look at how much America spends on it's president. Plus all the former presidents (currently 5 still living) who still require security etc and are a significant expense.

You do know it’s not just a straight choice between the current monarchy and a set up akin to the US President don’t you?

Eightiesfan · 01/06/2022 15:46

They should be gone IMHO. The argument that they bring tourism to this country is absurd, like PP have said tourists come to see the history and buildings, it’s certainly not because they think that when they visit Buckingham Palace they’ll see the Queen sat down knitting whilst watching Countdown.

A monarchy has no place in a modern society.

darisdet · 01/06/2022 15:48

I'm glad you answered that for me. @MelonsMelonsMelons 😅

darisdet · 01/06/2022 15:51

PurpleButterflyWings · 01/06/2022 15:45

@Muezza

YABVVVVU to start yet ANOTHER Monarchy-bashing thread. There's one every other bastard day on here now. Tedious, predictable, and pathetic. Another one for me to hide. Doing that in five seconds! Bash and berate them all you like. I won't see it.

It's not bashing for the sake of it. Have a read of the general republican stance first.

Bluueberrryy · 01/06/2022 15:51

So it's because they are bigger murdering bastards than my ancestors. Not exactly a good genetic stock, then. And let's be honest, 'they' didn't win. It was the poor conscripted peasants that fought and died.
*
And many of those battles were fought against my ancestors so it doesn't exactly endear them to me.*

Yeah bigger generally equaled stronger and better back in the day.

They won through conscripting the most, having better strategies, being braver, etc.

Fighting was a way of life. Fighting for land to feed your people, fighting for power so you didn't end up a conscripted peasant to someone else.

BigWoollyJumpers · 01/06/2022 15:57

I am ambivalent about the monarchy, and their wealth and privilege, but look at the attached, lovely list of the wealthiest (presidential) leaders in history. Lots of despots, loons, and hard left socialists among the gang:

www.lovemoney.com/gallerylist/83195/the-richest-world-leaders-of-all-time

Mugabe, Putin, Trump, Hitler, Bonapart, Assad, Berlusconi, Jung-Un, Castro, Marcos, Gadaffi, and an assortment of African heads of State.

orwellwasright · 01/06/2022 15:58

It's strange to argue that we need to maintain a hereditary monarchy because men sat on horses 1000 years ago and threw spears at each other.

I mean society moves on doesn't it. Bit embarrassing to be rattling on about how things were done in mediaeval times.

orwellwasright · 01/06/2022 16:00

BigWoollyJumpers · 01/06/2022 15:57

I am ambivalent about the monarchy, and their wealth and privilege, but look at the attached, lovely list of the wealthiest (presidential) leaders in history. Lots of despots, loons, and hard left socialists among the gang:

www.lovemoney.com/gallerylist/83195/the-richest-world-leaders-of-all-time

Mugabe, Putin, Trump, Hitler, Bonapart, Assad, Berlusconi, Jung-Un, Castro, Marcos, Gadaffi, and an assortment of African heads of State.

Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It's a sad state of affairs for sure. Humans are greedy. It's no argument for a hereditary head of state tho. Although it's a useful cautionary tale.

darisdet · 01/06/2022 16:00

Some of the arguments as to why we should keep an unelected head of state are entertaining.

GonnaGetGoingReturns · 01/06/2022 16:01

It is ridiculous how it's become in recent years.

Wills and Harry are like petulant spoiled brats who know they have an inheritance/don't have to do much.

Our alternative is Boris as head of state etc.

It's a pity because as a child (I'm 50 now) I celebrated the Silver Jubilee, watched Charles and Di's wedding as a teen and had a romanticism about it all.

Now I am quite cynical and jaded.

orwellwasright · 01/06/2022 16:03

PurpleButterflyWings · 01/06/2022 15:45

@Muezza

YABVVVVU to start yet ANOTHER Monarchy-bashing thread. There's one every other bastard day on here now. Tedious, predictable, and pathetic. Another one for me to hide. Doing that in five seconds! Bash and berate them all you like. I won't see it.

Another one too dense to understand the debate.

GonnaGetGoingReturns · 01/06/2022 16:04

Anyone who thinks the Queen actually works? Well she goes on walkabouts, meets and greets etc but it's hardly work compared to most working members of public is it? She has servants to do the grunt work for her, serve her breakfast etc.

Gettingthingsdone777 · 01/06/2022 16:04

You are not being unreasonable, the truth is there used to be a point to monarchy in its hayday.

Monarchs used to actually lead and even though succession was hereditary, monarchs still needed the support, including the financial support, of the court and ultimately the country to rule. It wasn’t a fair and democratic system, but you could maybe see the arguments for it in terms of stability, consistency and having a single vision for an otherwise factional nation. Then you have the fact that these people used to be educated from a young age to rule, they spoke lots of different languages, they trained in military strategy, theology and philosophy, they married monarchs from politically useful countries to create alliances helping the country to stay safe and prosper. The magic blood aspect of their reign, ridiculous though it is, was only part of the story back then and you had all sorts of battles over who was the rightful heir, so ironically, it did used to be somewhat meritocratic back in the bad old days- If you were bad at leading the court, if you were a terrible military strategist (see tzar Nicolas II) or if you were just generally seen as “showing the country up” there were ways of replacing you.

What do you have now? A monarchy with little or no role in terms of political, spiritual or moral leadership apart from a vague sense of upholding tradition. They don’t appear to do much good for their people, if they do it seems to be very difficult to quantify. They give each other medals and titles on their birthdays just.. because. The don’t pay taxes on much of their fortunes, and despite being a public institution, they are exempt from public scrutiny through official channels that the parliament and civil service are subject to.There is no one who will challenge them, not even another royal faction, for their position so that family just gets to accumulate wealth from the country generation after generation without having to ever earn it or reinvest in the country they are the figure head for. Given their access to resource few of them seem particularly gifted or impressive, so they don’t even particularly make the country look good. To be fair, the queen is a very good diplomat, but she didn’t do a great job raising good diplomats for some reason, so she hasn’t even produced decent heirs to replace her, surely that has to be part of the already very limited JD?

They seem like an expensive ornament which bakes deep class inequality into British society. After all, if the royal family is definitionally more important than everyone else, and there is no pretence that they have to do anything to earn that importance, or could do anything to lose it, how can we aspire to have a fair society? Very few people even believe in god anymore which is supposed to be the other source of their power and virtue. Proof of the unfairness of the society is therefore seen in every stamp, every 10 pound note, every royal crest on a fine building you’re not allowed into (though your ancestors likely paid for it with their money if they were nobility or their blood if they were peasantry).

Having said all that maybe they should be kept because tourists like to come look at the novelty of it all and that probably brings in more money for the country, possibly. Also pageantry.

orwellwasright · 01/06/2022 16:13

GonnaGetGoingReturns · 01/06/2022 16:04

Anyone who thinks the Queen actually works? Well she goes on walkabouts, meets and greets etc but it's hardly work compared to most working members of public is it? She has servants to do the grunt work for her, serve her breakfast etc.

I don't think this is a great argument. I actually think being head of state is an enormous responsibility and your life is never your own.

So if you add on that people are born to it and have little choice (I appreciate they can abdicate but at what emotional cost?) I actually think this lack of agency is another reason why the head of state should be allowed to choose that life not have it imposed on them.

I would absolutely hate to be under such scrutiny. All the wealth and privilege would not compensate for my lack of agency or privacy - something else the flag-shaggers don't understand. They just see the ££££ and the trinkets and think we're all so shallow that's what we want.

Bluueberrryy · 01/06/2022 16:14

orwellwasright · 01/06/2022 15:58

It's strange to argue that we need to maintain a hereditary monarchy because men sat on horses 1000 years ago and threw spears at each other.

I mean society moves on doesn't it. Bit embarrassing to be rattling on about how things were done in mediaeval times.

It's embarrassing to think that the past doesn't exist or that it doesn't matter. It absolutely matters.

Florenz · 01/06/2022 16:17

The argument against the Monarchy makes no sense. Yes a President would be elected but democratic elections gave us Boris Johnson as PM. Yes the Queen has the job by birthright but has done a very good job for over 70 years now. Surely the result matters more than the process?

Maybe in 20 years things will be different, if Charles and/or William turn out to be terrible monarchs and politicians start doing a good job, we can think about abolishing the Monarchy. But in the current climate, with the current bunch of useless politicians, it's a terrible idea.

balalake · 01/06/2022 16:18

I think the majority of people still would prefer the monarchy to an expensive president, assuming there is agreement as to their role. Maybe less so once the Queen dies.

orwellwasright · 01/06/2022 16:18

Bluueberrryy · 01/06/2022 16:14

It's embarrassing to think that the past doesn't exist or that it doesn't matter. It absolutely matters.

Who said the past doesn't matter?

My point is that you don't continue living like your ancestors. Or perhaps you do. Do you eschew all modern medicine? Live without windows? Never wash your body? Not use technology? Shun everything made of plastic, etc. etc.

Of course you don't.

orwellwasright · 01/06/2022 16:25

balalake · 01/06/2022 16:18

I think the majority of people still would prefer the monarchy to an expensive president, assuming there is agreement as to their role. Maybe less so once the Queen dies.

This is certainly the case. I think the support for republicanism is around the 20s per cent wise, although who knows what will happen when the queen dies.

We are a long way from becoming a republic or even having a referendum. The debate is always an interesting one though and needs to be periodically revisited. It's no surprise we're doing that now what with the jubilee, an increasingly frail monarch, Andrew etc.