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.

Goodbye Monarchy, as is

458 replies

Poopoolittlerabbit · 14/11/2022 00:00

that’s it really. I’m not fussed about the ‘king’ -
happy to downgrade the entire system.
the jewels, the palaces, the changing of the guard belong to the country, and/or people … if Charles buggers off we keep all the tourist attractions, and all that people say makes the royal family worth while ££
now the Queen has gone, the ‘firm’ needs to go
done with them. AIBU?

OP posts:
Mamamia7962 · 15/11/2022 09:53

But that is just your opinion OP. The facts are that VG was over the age of consent in this country when the alleged incident was said to have taken place. If you read her memoirs she 'worked' for JE. On that night in question she was paid something like £10,000 by Epstein to 'entertain' PA for the evening. They went to Tramps nightclub and then back to Maxwell's house in London where that infamous photo was alleged to have been taken. Now I think that PA was with her that evening even though he denied it, but the offence would be whether he knew she was being paid and had been trafficked.

InPraiseOfBacchus · 15/11/2022 09:56

PurpleButterflyWings · 14/11/2022 00:26

The Royals are not going anywhere. Sorry and all that @Poopoolittlerabbit 😢 Don't cry too much now.

Wow. I knew there were sensitive royalists on here but this takes the cake.

Did King Charles pick you though, sis?

vera99 · 15/11/2022 10:02

Mamamia7962 · 15/11/2022 09:53

But that is just your opinion OP. The facts are that VG was over the age of consent in this country when the alleged incident was said to have taken place. If you read her memoirs she 'worked' for JE. On that night in question she was paid something like £10,000 by Epstein to 'entertain' PA for the evening. They went to Tramps nightclub and then back to Maxwell's house in London where that infamous photo was alleged to have been taken. Now I think that PA was with her that evening even though he denied it, but the offence would be whether he knew she was being paid and had been trafficked.

I agree that what you said is plausible and there is probably a defence in law there - but what is unconscionable is that that and other questions have not been tested under oath by either the Uk or the US authorities. There will be extensive police protection records that can identify where Andrew was or wasn't at various times but as far as I'm aware they have never been proffered or examined. Compare his treatment to that of Julian Assange whose initial crime in terms of attempted detention was that of sex without a condom with a previously consensual partner and by all accounts he still appears to think he has done no wrong and there is no public case to answer.

Poopoolittlerabbit · 15/11/2022 10:10

‘Wow. I knew there were sensitive royalists on here but this takes the cake.’

I know. Right up to the point where they’re defending a man who settled a court case where he was accused of raping a young girl.

OP posts:
Blossomtoes · 15/11/2022 10:12

Poopoolittlerabbit · 15/11/2022 09:41

It’s right there with the ‘she looked older ‘ argument… Prince Andrew’s belongs behind bars and if he didn’t have the word ‘Prince’ before his first name, there’s a really good chance he would be in prison.

She didn’t have to look older, she was 17. The issue is whether he knew she was trafficked. Even if he did and he was Joe Bloggs it’s unlikely he’d have got a custodial sentence.

Blossomtoes · 15/11/2022 10:14

Poopoolittlerabbit · 15/11/2022 10:10

‘Wow. I knew there were sensitive royalists on here but this takes the cake.’

I know. Right up to the point where they’re defending a man who settled a court case where he was accused of raping a young girl.

They’re not defending anyone. He was never accused of rape and, because the case never went to court, he’s never been convicted of any crime. As long as you keep writing fiction I’ll point it out.

Mamamia7962 · 15/11/2022 10:20

vera99 - I don't know whether they would have got a conviction on that. It would have been VG's word against PA's, even if it was proved he was actually with her that night there's no proof he knew she was paid as that was between Epstein and VG.

vera99 · 15/11/2022 10:28

As I say we can only surmise to what the outcome would be if the case ever went to trial as the authorities here have shown great reluctance to test the prima facie case. The FBI has asked Andrew to come forward and answer questions to which he seemingly agreed as a long-term friend and confidante of convicted felons Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein and help them with their enquiries but to date, it would appear that he hasn't and into that moral vacuum speculation will arise

Poopoolittlerabbit · 15/11/2022 10:32

Given Prince Andrew’s apparent innocence, it’s surprising how he’s been stripped of all his public duties, isn’t it.

OP posts:
Mamamia7962 · 15/11/2022 10:47

Innocence of what OP?

MarieIVanArkleStinks · 15/11/2022 10:50

Persistence in the face of all evidence to the contrary is interesting once you see men's sexual exploitation of women rise to the ugly surface.

Compare: 'I did not have sexual relations with That Woman' ... (cue evidence: the dress)

With: 'I don't recall ever meeting this lady' (cue evidence: the photograph).

Oh, dear.

Blossomtoes · 15/11/2022 10:53

Poopoolittlerabbit · 15/11/2022 10:32

Given Prince Andrew’s apparent innocence, it’s surprising how he’s been stripped of all his public duties, isn’t it.

Not really. Because of people like you he’s been found guilty in the court of public opinion. Meanwhile legally he’s innocent until proved guilty because that’s how our judiciary works.

Poopoolittlerabbit · 15/11/2022 12:06

@Blossomtoes okay love. He wasn’t found guilty because he bought his way out of it. But if I were the rest of the royals I wouldn’t let that smug, entitles nonce anywhere needs any of my children.

OP posts:
Poopoolittlerabbit · 15/11/2022 12:08

THESE are the people you want representing the U.K.?
please. That’s the problem with hereditary power - it’s not earned and there’s no way you can know that the next in line is actually going to capable, compassionate or indeed not even a rapist.

OP posts:
Figgygal · 15/11/2022 12:42

Poopoolittlerabbit · 15/11/2022 12:06

@Blossomtoes okay love. He wasn’t found guilty because he bought his way out of it. But if I were the rest of the royals I wouldn’t let that smug, entitles nonce anywhere needs any of my children.

OK genuine question assuming he did have sex with VG when she was 17 amd over the legal age of consent and he believed it consensual how does that make him a "nonce"?

vera99 · 15/11/2022 12:45

Andrew loved to go to Thailand whenever he could with his filthy friends.

metro.co.uk/2022/01/24/prince-andrew-partied-with-jeffrey-epstein-and-ghislaine-maxwell-in-thailand-15971988/

TheKeatingFive · 15/11/2022 12:45

OK genuine question assuming he did have sex with VG when she was 17 amd over the legal age of consent and he believed it consensual

Leaving aside the 'nonce' question. He's never claimed this happened. His story is that he never met her. Not that he had what he believed to be consensual sex with her.

Popgoestheweaselagain · 15/11/2022 12:49

Olios · 14/11/2022 00:34

YABU. The royal family is part of national identity and culture which contributes to people's well-being and sense of belonging. I actually think the constant attack on identity and culture is partially responsible for deteriorating mental health in general as it's exhausting and depressing to hear. Nobody alive today is responsible for the atrocities of the colonial era and just because something is a 'throwback to empire' doesn't mean it has to be eradicated. The royal family have modern roles and the king is also an advocate for the environment on a platform where frankly we need as many voices as possible for the benefit of young people.

I tend to agree about the mental health issue. If people are interested in history, they can go study it. Most of us want to live in the now. I don' like being constantly reminded of a time when I would have been divided from my friends, family, work colleagues, or keep having our differences pointed out, or made to feel guilty because I'm not constantly calling for some kind of atonement. It used to feel so optimistic about the kind of society I lived in and the direction we were heading. Now it's all 'Oh, you're happy? How privileged for you! Feel guilty!'

MarieIVanArkleStinks · 15/11/2022 13:01

Poopoolittlerabbit · 15/11/2022 12:08

THESE are the people you want representing the U.K.?
please. That’s the problem with hereditary power - it’s not earned and there’s no way you can know that the next in line is actually going to capable, compassionate or indeed not even a rapist.

This is the material point. All this apologism, all these protestations of 'innocent until proven guilty' and telling people what they already know, that he's never been found guilty of any criminal offence [because he's been cossetted and protected] are immaterial. This is - or was - an unelected representative of our country. He was in this position because of the family he was born into; no other reason. He's as thick as mince, ill-qualified for and temperamentally highly unsuited to this post.

People knew what he was, hence the nicknames 'Randy Andy' and 'Airmiles Andy'. These say all you need to know about his flagrant abuse of his position. He fleeced money from anyone he could. He had dubious contacts, including in the middle east. This is bad enough on its own. To cap it all, he's then photographed associated with two known sex-traffickers. The photo with Epstein in Central Park was taken after his conviction.

So what, exactly, does criminality have to do with it? I don't have to be convicted of a criminal offence to be fired for bringing my profession into disrepute. This is what he's done - not necessarily a 'profession' as this waste-of-space family doesn't have one - in his case, he's brought the entire country into disrepute. Is this the kind of person UK citizens want representing them on a global stage? Is that the kind of message you want sending to the world about the kind of elitist corruption and exploitation the UK supposedly stands for? I'm not even going to start on Charles III, but his nose isn't entirely clean in these matters, either.

I, for one, don't want a family like this representing my nation. I want democracy and I want accountability. With an elitist, hereditary system, you're never going to get either. This is an undesirable state of affairs in any democratic nation, no matter who holds the hereditary station, but the Windsors are particularly poor custodians of their significant privilege.

caroleanboneparte · 15/11/2022 13:19

I wish one of the political parties would give us the option of a referendum on the monarchy.

We should get they every time there's a new monarch.

Poopoolittlerabbit · 15/11/2022 13:54

‘I wish one of the political parties would give us the option of a referendum on the monarchy.’

we could start with stripping back of the powers, no more meeting the PM, no more signing Acts.
Downgrade them power wise, until they’re more like other European royal families… then see.

OP posts:
DownNative · 15/11/2022 14:06

Poopoolittlerabbit · 14/11/2022 00:59

‘YABU. The royal family is part of national identity and culture which contributes to people's well-being and sense of belonging. I actually think the constant attack on identity and culture is partially responsible for deteriorating mental health in general as it's exhausting and depressing to hear.’

Wow. Really? And if you’re Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish and have an other idea of what ‘National identity’ might be? Outside of the ENGLISH royal family? And what of the myriad of cultures and heritages that make up Britain and our identity?

British Royal Family, thank you.

And you do know there's lots of people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who want to keep the Monarchy too....right?!

Hell, the SNP are saying they'd want to keep the King as Head Of State post-independence if it came to that!

I think you're underestimating the strength of support for the Monarchy, tbh....

DownNative · 15/11/2022 14:16

vera99 · 14/11/2022 09:16

Yes, the Irish famine where 1 million died and 1 million fled the country reducing the population by 25% whilst the British establishment looked on and did nothing 1845 -1849 - no wonder that the Union Jack is called the butcher's apron and not a single apology ....

'The genocide of the Great Famine is distinct in the fact that the British created the conditions of dire hopelessness, and desperate dependence on the potato crop through a series of sadistic, debasing, premeditated and barbarous Penal Laws, which deliberately and systematically stripped the Irish of even the least semblance of basic human freedom.' When blight struck the Irish were 'totally vulnerable'. This was a 'nuanced genocide', he continues, one that manipulated fate 'by pushing a people to the brink of annihilation and turning away so not to hear the wailing

@vera99 you've merely cherry picked a wee bit from Liam Kennedy's article on the Queen's University Belfast Website. Kennedy goes on to destroy the whole idea the Famine was "genocide". 🤦‍♂️

In fact, no reputable historian believes it was genocide in any sense. And the ROI Government agrees its not genocide.

"Doyle Expounds Official Famine Line

It has taken a Government Minister, Ms Avril Doyle, to put Irish-Americans straight about the Great Famine"

  • Irish News headline and article on 14th December 1996

"The woefully inadequate response of the then British authorities and the misguided relief policies which they pursued are now well established in the professional literature of Famine studies. It was a rigidly doctrinaire and ideological administration, remote from the people whom it allegedly served and determined to pursue a programme of economic modernisation, even at the cost of thousands of people's lives.

However, it goes way beyond the boundaries of acceptable analysis to argue that there was a genocidal intent on the part of the British Government at the time and that the Irish Famine is therefore directly equivalent to the Holocaust. By using that argument, we are letting the British authorities off the hook. Their hands appear to have been clean but they certainly were not.

In my comments in America and elsewhere, I have made my position abundantly clear. The British response during the Famine was entirely inadequate, but the genocidal argument has no validity and this inaccuracy does a disservice both to the victims of the Holocaust or the Famine."

  • Minister Of State At The Department Of The Taoiseach, Mrs Avril Doyle speaking in the Irish Parliament on Thursday 19th December 1996

Avril Doyle was also the chair of the Republic of Ireland's National Famine Committee charged with organising the official commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the Great Famine.

"It is not good for continuing Anglo-Irish relations to term the famine as a deliberate act of genocide. What happened was more a case of appalling neglect and disinterest on the part of some of the reigning officialdom. Serious mistakes were made but there was no official genocide policy. It was really the manifestation of a laissez faire philosophy — let market forces reach their own level and, in the meantime, let the people die or try to survive, as inevitably they would. Certainly it was a philosophy that failed disastrously and for which we still pay."

  • David Andrews (TD representing the Constituency of Dún Laoghaire) speaking in the Irish Parliament on Thursday 19th December 1996.

"In the case of the Great Famine no reputable historian believes that the British state intended the destruction of the Irish people, and the Famine-Holocaust comparisons provide no support either. Yet one million died. Does intentionality matter?

It does matter, for at least three reasons. First, it directly determines the scale of the tragedy. It is easy to forget that had Germany not lost the war, many more Jews would have been killed, such was the strength of commitment to the Final Solution. By contrast, when the Irish economy recovered some strength at the end of the 1840s the crisis was largely, though not wholly over – to the evident relief, not only of people in Ireland but of British policy makers also.

But to narrow the focus simply to the role of the British government for a moment: for all the massive irresponsibility and buck-passing that characterised the five years of crisis, the state succeeded in organising public relief schemes that employed three-quarters of a million workers, and at one point was responsible for feeding three million people on a daily basis.

These are not the actions of a Government or a state bent on genocide."

  • Liam Kennedy, emeritus professor of economic history at Queen's University, Belfast, Northern Ireland and author of "The Great Irish Famine and the Holocaust" on the QUB website

"The belief that the authorities in London did little to prevent the Irish from starving underpins the recurrent claims of genocide from some quarters in Ireland and particularly Irish-America. There is a sense in which England "slept". However, two points need emphasising here.

First is that any worthwhile definition of genocide includes murderous intent, and it must be said that not even the most bigoted and racist commentators of the day sought the extermination of the Irish. Certainly, stereotypical images of feckless peasants and lazy landlords abounded. They underpinned an interpretation of the Famine as a divine solution to an otherwise intractable problem of overpopulation, and justified tough policies. If policy failure resulted in deaths, then (as in the Netherlands in the same years and in India and elsewhere later) they were largely the by-product of a dogmatic version of political economy, not the deliberate outcome of anti-Irish racism. In the late 1840s, Whitehall policy makers were no less dogmatic toward Irish famine victims.....Yet even the toughest of them hoped for better times for Ireland and, however perversely, considered the harshest measures prescribed as a form of communal medicine. A charge of doctrinaire neglect is easier to sustain than one of genocide.

Second, modern accusations of genocide underestimate, or overlook altogether, the enormous challenge facing relief agencies, both central and local, public and private, at the time."

  • Cormac Ó Gráda, Irish economic historian and professor emeritus of economics at University College Dublin as well as author of Black '47 and Beyond: The Great Irish Famine in History, Economy, and Memory

"One word, however, is not open to our usage.....This is the term "holocaust". When you see it, you know you are encountering famine-porn. It is inevitably part of a presentation that is historically unbalanced and, like other kinds of pornography, is distinguished by a covert (and sometimes overt) appeal to misanthropy and almost always an incitement to hatred."

  • Historian and author of twenty-four books on Ireland, Professor Donald H. Akenson speaking 150th Famine commemorations at the Ulster-American Folk Park in Omagh, County Tyrone, Northern Ireland in September 1995

Akenson is considered to be the "world's foremost authority on the Irish Diaspora." He lectures at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

"In 1944 the Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin coined a new word, genocide, to describe what was happening. Four years later the UN adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Since then the term has been applied to other situations, sometimes retrospectively, for example to Armenia in 1915–18 and our own Potato Famine. But how appropriate is this? The key word in the Convention is ‘intent’. I’ll leave readers to argue whether this has been established in the Armenian case (see Letters), but as I listened to our guide, Vitold, relate the grim details of the Nazis’ ‘Final Solution’, I couldn’t help but conclude that, notwithstanding British culpability for the millions of victims of the Famine in Ireland, genocide it was not."

  • Editor of History Ireland in an Editorial in Issue 5 September/October 2015, Volume 23

"Dr Williams, therefore, sees the Famine as “Britain’s Great Failure” – a failure of public policy. It was not genocide, but equally it was not simply the result of a natural disaster.

Moreover, he emphasises that it was the Irish poor – not the “Irish people” – who were “starved and driven out”. For the Irish upper and middle classes, Catholic as well as Protestant, life during the Famine went on pretty much as before. The framing of the Famine in nationalist terms by John Mitchel and others – to quote Williams, “as England against Ireland, the landlords against the people and, by implication at least, Protestants against Catholics” – is wholly misleading, though sadly it remains part of our popular memory and still provokes anti-British sentiment both in Ireland and among the descendants overseas of those “driven out”."

Review of Ireland’s Great Famine, Britain’s Great Failure by William H. A. Williams on the Irish Catholic website

www.irishcatholic.com/the-irish-famine-natural-disaster-or-genocide/

Popgoestheweaselagain · 15/11/2022 14:19

MangosteenSoda · 14/11/2022 09:05

I’m much less bothered about the monarchy than I used to be. It’s essentially ceremonial anyway. Charles signing laws into being/having a chat with the PM is politically meaningless. He can’t realistically refuse to sign something or tell the PM what to do as the concept of monarchy by consent would instantly end.

After the shitshow of Brexit, I would absolutely want to know what the alternative looks like and what the process would be to get there before voting for it. I’m not keen on the American or French versions of presidency and am not sure whether the, say, Irish or German versions would be worth the effort. On the basis of the last 10 years or so, I also don’t trust my fellow citizens to vote with any modicum of sense. Sometimes the status quo is the least bad option.

I understand why people see the monarchy as a bit of an anachronism in a modern democracy, but the idea of voting in someone who's climbed up the greasy pole - more elections, more spin - it would be impossible to separate it from party politics, thus making the Head of State a divisive, rather than unifying leader - I'd rather stick with what we've got, all things considered.

TheKeatingFive · 15/11/2022 14:22

but the idea of voting in someone who's climbed up the greasy pole - more elections, more spin - it would be impossible to separate it from party politics, thus making the Head of State a divisive, rather than unifying leader

But there's nothing inevitable about that at all. Other countries presidential models avoid that (ROI for example).

Swipe left for the next trending thread