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

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 It's just so wrong and outdated.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:
itsnotdeep · 10/09/2022 13:13

It's not a goady thread - it's a perfectly legitimate question. And those of you that don't agree are also permitted to have your opinions. And there's no need to tell people to fuck off just because they don't agree with all or some of the stuff associated with the royals.

The amount of wealth that has been inherited over the last couple of days is just obscene.

WhileMyGuitarGentlyWeeps · 10/09/2022 13:14

Blossomtoes · 10/09/2022 13:09

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

Show quote history

Nobody - NOBODY could be this clueless???????????????! 😂

Oh dear @Pumperthepumper

Melt it down, (the gold coach) we could sell it and use the money to fund foodbanks.

OMG what HAVE you said? I am literally so embarrassed for you!!!

AuxArmesCitoyens · 10/09/2022 13:14

And no inheritance tax on it. Nice little loophole they negotiated for themselves there.

WhileMyGuitarGentlyWeeps · 10/09/2022 13:15

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.

Excellent post!

blackpearwhitelilies · 10/09/2022 13:18

I think I am probably still a republican, but wavering a bit. At a time when I have felt horrified by the spectacle of recent PMs and their antics, having another figurehead held in respect and affection across the world is quite comforting. I’m genuinely so saddened to lose the Queen. I didn’t expect to mind as much as I do.

Daftasabroom · 10/09/2022 13:19

unicormb · 10/09/2022 11:40

I don't justify them. It's undemocratic to have an unelected head of state.

Maybe, but look at those we do democratically elect. It's a largely ceremonial role, unlike the undemocratically elected House of Lords.

RedToothBrush · 10/09/2022 13:20

I think that the Royal Family can only continue to exist due to system of constitutional checks and balances. The Royal family are answerable to the public (via the media) and therefore have to remain relevant to the times. The idea that the monarch still 'rules' i dont think is really true in that sense.

Thisismynamenow · 10/09/2022 13:20

Slushycuppa · 10/09/2022 12:10

I could justify them a bit more if they didn't cost the tax payer extortionate amounts of money.

And while I'm sure they bring in billions to London as people on MN love to claim, none of that money seems to be filtering down to where I live.

@Slushycuppa that's hardly the royals fault, it's the Government who manages the tax revenue.

AuxArmesCitoyens · 10/09/2022 13:21

I'd go for the German or Irish model personally. A head of state chosen from people with a lifetime of proper service, not just ribbon-cutting, who act as a figurehead when needed and shut up and keep their heads down when not.

RedToothBrush · 10/09/2022 13:23

The monarch has had all political parties united for one day today. Seeing all the prime ministers together talking to each other rather than arguing was not a bad thing.

Grantanow · 10/09/2022 13:24

If we didn't have a hereditary peg to fill the hole we might in a republican UK have had Thatcher as President for Life given how many people thought she was wonderful or Johnson given how many want him back. Just saying.

AuxArmesCitoyens · 10/09/2022 13:26

And if Charles had not had children we would have Andrew representing us on the international stage for decades.

100problems · 10/09/2022 13:27

@Pumperthepumper

It's not actually a big lump of rolling gold

Daisybuttercup12345 · 10/09/2022 13:28
  1. It's not all about you
  2. Who cares about changing your insignificant mind.
  3. If it wasn't the royals then it would be a President. He or She probably wouldn't be to your liking either.
  4. Very Goady and attention seeking post.
Pumperthepumper · 10/09/2022 13:30

WhileMyGuitarGentlyWeeps · 10/09/2022 13:14

Nobody - NOBODY could be this clueless???????????????! 😂

Oh dear @Pumperthepumper

Melt it down, (the gold coach) we could sell it and use the money to fund foodbanks.

OMG what HAVE you said? I am literally so embarrassed for you!!!

Show quote history

I did think it was made of gold!

Ah well, we could still strip it for parts.

BeanieTeen · 10/09/2022 13:30

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.

It can be justified because times have moved on and the ‘bullying’ and ‘ruling’ no longer applies, obviously. If it did then royalty wouldn’t exist anymore.

Now it’s cutting ribbons, handing out awards and supporting many good causes and charities. I’m happy supporting that.

I think the main members of the Royal Family definitely feel a sense of duty and responsibility for others. As above, that is more than can be said for many politicians.

worriedatthistime · 10/09/2022 13:31

@Slushycuppa it filters down to all as it goes it one pot taxes
They pay taxes as well and they don't cost
Most of us don't see where money comes from and how it benefits us when we are struggling to pay the bills
But the government need a pot to work from the less richer people pay in the more other ls have to pay
Do you not think it costs america a lot having a president and security for former presidents etc
If the monarchy was abolished today you or i would not notice or see a single penny more

100problems · 10/09/2022 13:31

You'd get more if it had a catalytic converter @Pumperthepumper

BenCoopersSupportWren · 10/09/2022 13:32

Let’s abolish the royals so another multi-millionaire Eton-educated toff living off family money can call themselves “President” instead?

Nah. I’m too old to be so idealist as to think that we can sweep away all the baked-in unequal capitalist power structures in my lifetime, so I’ll put up with the RF because they have little negative impact on my life (and they certainly don’t cost me a “disproportionate” amount as a PP claimed - I think it’s a few pence a year). Far less negative impact than, say, having to support a loved one through a PIP appeal because the Tories think disability is as much of a moral failing as poverty.

worriedatthistime · 10/09/2022 13:33

Also why do people compare previous times to society now ?
How people behaved and what was normal , 500 years ago , 50 years ago cannot be judged on todays standards
In 100 years people will look back at todays times and say why did they do this , behave like that etc etc
History cannot be changed but it can be learnt from

IdiotCreatures · 10/09/2022 13:33

Pumperthepumper · 10/09/2022 13:30

I did think it was made of gold!

Ah well, we could still strip it for parts.

Show quote history

It could be auctioned and the funds raised used to help people
I think that is rather a good idea

AuxArmesCitoyens · 10/09/2022 13:33

They pay taxes as well

The queen didn't pay income tax for the first forty-odd years of her reign and then had to be dragged into it kicking and screaming. Charles has just inherited several billion quid with no inheritance tax.

AuxArmesCitoyens · 10/09/2022 13:36

Evidence-based report on royal patronage for charities: givingevidence.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/giving-evidence-royal-charity-patronages-july-2020.pdf

TL:DR version: It's largely pointless in a lot of cases, the effect on charity revenue is generally small or zero, and their involvement is highly unevenly distributed and politicised.

Original poster
slippe · 10/09/2022 13:37

AuxArmesCitoyens · 10/09/2022 13:33

They pay taxes as well

The queen didn't pay income tax for the first forty-odd years of her reign and then had to be dragged into it kicking and screaming. Charles has just inherited several billion quid with no inheritance tax.

No inheritance tax ?? Seriously ?

OP posts:
AuxArmesCitoyens · 10/09/2022 13:39

Seriously. Monarchs don't pay inheritance tax on the family fortune.

Swipe left for the next trending thread