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.

How do you justify the royals ?

220 replies

slippe · 10/09/2022 11:13

So their ancestors were essentially the biggest bullies and managed to get what they could and have now passed it on.

They're people, just like us, but get to 'rule' over us.

How do you justify this ? It's just so wrong and outdated. Please tell me your reasons why you Support this, I am genuinely interested in whether I can change my mind about it all.

OP posts:
Whokno · 10/09/2022 12:56

Actually @slippe I was quite interested in thinking this through, as I've been giving it some thought this week and while my instinct is republicanism, my pragmatist side can't help accepting that the royal family works. But I've come to the conclusion that other posters are right and you are being disingenuous. The fact you're all "I might be wrong" "genuinely trying to understand" etc. And then when someone disagrees with you come out with "well, actually I've got a degree in public law" makes me disinclined to discuss any further. I bid you good day.

Blossomtoes · 10/09/2022 12:56

Pumperthepumper · 10/09/2022 12:52

I agree with you. If we really have to have one to avoid a republic then fine but we don’t need hundreds of them and they don’t need castles or gold carriages or any of the other obscenities.

Well it looks as if that view’s been taken on board. There’s widespread press this morning suggesting that the number of properties will now be drastically reduced with even the privately owned Balmoral handed to the nation. The gold coach, of course, belongs to the nation anyway, does anyone (who didn’t pay for it) really begrudge its use for ceremonial occasions.

Carpy88999 · 10/09/2022 12:57

AuxArmesCitoyens · 10/09/2022 12:52

Also not sure having one unelected individual able to invalidate the result of a democratic election if they don't like the look of the winner is a massive plus point.

They have no power. If a monarch ever intervened that would be the end of them.

starrynight21 · 10/09/2022 12:58

I justify them by thinking of many republics around the world, and how I don't like the look of them at all.

slippe · 10/09/2022 12:59

Whokno · 10/09/2022 12:56

Actually @slippe I was quite interested in thinking this through, as I've been giving it some thought this week and while my instinct is republicanism, my pragmatist side can't help accepting that the royal family works. But I've come to the conclusion that other posters are right and you are being disingenuous. The fact you're all "I might be wrong" "genuinely trying to understand" etc. And then when someone disagrees with you come out with "well, actually I've got a degree in public law" makes me disinclined to discuss any further. I bid you good day.

I don't have a degree in public law. I studied it years ago. It's one module as part of a law degree. I barely remember it and I'm genuinely asking questions, based on my memory of it. I'm not massively versed in politics / history at all, as you can probably tell.

OP posts:
Pumperthepumper · 10/09/2022 12:59

Blossomtoes · 10/09/2022 12:56

Well it looks as if that view’s been taken on board. There’s widespread press this morning suggesting that the number of properties will now be drastically reduced with even the privately owned Balmoral handed to the nation. The gold coach, of course, belongs to the nation anyway, does anyone (who didn’t pay for it) really begrudge its use for ceremonial occasions.

Me! I do! Melt it down, we could sell it and use the money to fund foodbanks.

slippe · 10/09/2022 12:59

starrynight21 · 10/09/2022 12:58

I justify them by thinking of many republics around the world, and how I don't like the look of them at all.

Why ? Because the presidents have too much power ? Most countries are republics aren't they ?

OP posts:
TokidokiBarbie · 10/09/2022 13:00

Well, how do you justify the privileged life you live over other poorer countries who didn't have as domineering an empire in centuries past? Having state support and living in relative safety etc.

AuxArmesCitoyens · 10/09/2022 13:01

Of course they have power, they use it upstream to make sure legislation meets their needs. What do you think would happen if someone wanted to present a law to strip them of their various exemptions? Do you think it would get anywhere near a vote? Of course not, it would get dropped way before that point.

And if they really don't have any power, why are we spending millions keeping them in the lap of luxury?

AlwaysGinPlease · 10/09/2022 13:01

TokidokiBarbie · 10/09/2022 13:00

Well, how do you justify the privileged life you live over other poorer countries who didn't have as domineering an empire in centuries past? Having state support and living in relative safety etc.

This. This 100%

Riapia · 10/09/2022 13:02

If you need to ask then you will never know.

ZenNudist · 10/09/2022 13:03

I don't support the huge amount of money spent on the royals but unfortunately we would just have a president costing us money instead. At least the RF are born to it rather than seeking it. I don't trust politicians and I don't trust the British people to vote in a decent person as head of state.

In changing our constitution we may well break what is otherwise working quite well. Our political system is fucked but at least the executive branch works.

BuildersTeaMaker · 10/09/2022 13:03

I’m not a fan of the royal family but I am a firm believer that we benefit form a hereditary monarch as head of state

I’ve spent years trying to look at other countries for a better model. I just don’t see one.

Elected presidents are political head of states- the people who run for president are driven by power, backed with money and lobbying influence, and you end up with people like Trump, or even bush or Regan. It’ll be, in the uk, more of the same privileged, entitled wealthy elitists we have running for power now.

even the switz model of a team of heads of states that rotate is not well liked in that country. The idea is good, but in effect no one knows who the head of state is, no one gets behind them and there’s little continuity.
so what do you propose, names drawn from a hat? Or maybe the model used to choose the Dalia llama - a set of councillor tour the country to find the “right person” and take them form their family?

I like the idea that our head of state is effectively powerless and is only there to do the PR for the country really. I like that our head of state can stay out of the thick of unstable politics and government, that can bring elder statesman experience, knowledge etc to the leader of the country in the form of entirely confidential conversations. i like that our head of state has had to serve a long apprenticeship for 50 plus years that I’m sure has been frustrating, dull and pointless at times. I like it that they spend years getting to know the country and countries in the commonwealth - jeez a president would be travelling everyday of their presidency to even get a fraction of that experience the queen and Charles did. And then they come into the job when everyone else is retiring and know they have to work up till they die. I like it that they’re not exactly excited or relishing in the prospect. I like that parliament still has to pay homage to a constitution and its powers vested in the monarch.

I believe the monarchy has saved us from extreme politics, dictatorship and power crazed (let’s face it mostly ) men. I hate the idea that the same stupid people that voted for Boris, Brexit could decide our head of state and the implication of that last vestige of stability and long term continuity.

but there again, I also believe that the length of government should be increased to 10 years. Elections every 4-5 years means governments are more interested in what will make people vote for them at the next election and keep their personal seat/power vs getting on with unexciting stuff like just managing and stabilising their policies for the good of the country.

bumblingbovine49 · 10/09/2022 13:06

Every country has some sort of head of state. It doesn't seem to me that out monarchy is much worse than many of the others in other countries . That is not to say we shouldn't perhaps makes changes but since we curry have a constitutional monarchy then I am absolutely ok with the the things that go with it.

I am all.for.debatw about possibly replacing the monarchy as long as we come up with a workable viable alternative that isn't worse than what it replaces. Until that happens however I'm ok with the ceremonies and rituals that go with a monarchy

Carpy88999 · 10/09/2022 13:06

TokidokiBarbie · 10/09/2022 13:00

Well, how do you justify the privileged life you live over other poorer countries who didn't have as domineering an empire in centuries past? Having state support and living in relative safety etc.

Whataboutery.

LadyKenya · 10/09/2022 13:06

Pumperthepumper · 10/09/2022 12:59

Me! I do! Melt it down, we could sell it and use the money to fund foodbanks.

This. The gold coach supposedly belongs to the nation, yet only the royal family get to use it.Hmm

AuxArmesCitoyens · 10/09/2022 13:07

Presidents need not cost a lot: www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20243493

Again, if Edward hadn't randomly fallen in love with an American divorcee we would have had a Nazi sympathising king going into WW2. Sure that would have been great for the nation's stability.

TitInATrance · 10/09/2022 13:08

slippe · 10/09/2022 12:53

I think if they didn't give royal assent, it would be a big Moment and they probably wouldn't survive it.

That’s not how it’s done. They change the laws before they get that far.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth

NanaNelly · 10/09/2022 13:08

SheepOnTheBridge · 10/09/2022 11:30

What would Alistair Bruce do without the Royals - he knows EVERYTHING and is AMAZING

I think he’s fab and all will be well again when he’s hopefully on our screens over the next few days.

WhileMyGuitarGentlyWeeps · 10/09/2022 13:09

slippe · 10/09/2022 12:51

Yeah totally true. How can you justify being born into a very rich family and inheriting all of that. Also technically ' not fair '

It's not just the Royal family who are born into a very rich family and who inherit from it FFS. Millions of non-Royals have this privilege Your ignorance is utterly astounding. As @Blossomtoes said, enough of the faux innocence, you're as goady af!

Blossomtoes · 10/09/2022 13:09

Pumperthepumper · 10/09/2022 12:59

Me! I do! Melt it down, we could sell it and use the money to fund foodbanks.

You think it’s made of gold? Seriously? 😂😂😂😂😂😂

lemmein · 10/09/2022 13:09

slippe · 10/09/2022 11:13

So their ancestors were essentially the biggest bullies and managed to get what they could and have now passed it on.

They're people, just like us, but get to 'rule' over us.

How do you justify this ? It's just so wrong and outdated. Please tell me your reasons why you Support this, I am genuinely interested in whether I can change my mind about it all.

Serf-life innit? 😎

DixonD · 10/09/2022 13:09

slippe · 10/09/2022 12:55

But do they actually rule ? They can't make any decisions. Or ?

They don’t rule in the traditional sense.

slippe · 10/09/2022 13:10

@TitInATrance wow !

OP posts:
slippe · 10/09/2022 13:11

@WhileMyGuitarGentlyWeeps I made your point exactly . Why are you attacking me.. I literally made your point.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread