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

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:
vera99 · 15/11/2022 14:28

MarieIVanArkleStinks · 15/11/2022 13:01

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.

Bang on.👏👏👏👏👏

vera99 · 15/11/2022 14:33

DownNative · 15/11/2022 14:16

@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/

Thanks for that, interesting and sounds like a reasonable interpretation of what occurred. Irish history isn't my forte aside from the Troubles about which I am pretty well informed for various reasons.

oldwhyno · 15/11/2022 14:33

I'm up for reforming and slimming down the monarchy. But I'd still keep it.

I think the parts of it that act as a tourist attraction for the country are much more valuable with people still living the roles. And they have a diplomatic role to play that would be hard to replace.

Getting of them would further relegate the UK down the list of significant influential countries, and wouldn't benefit UK citizens one bit.

If you want to go after the inherited privilege and wealth I wouldn't start with our own UK Museum slaves, I'd start with the Duke of Westminster.

DownNative · 15/11/2022 14:51

vera99 · 15/11/2022 14:33

Thanks for that, interesting and sounds like a reasonable interpretation of what occurred. Irish history isn't my forte aside from the Troubles about which I am pretty well informed for various reasons.

Additionally, in the decades after the Famine the then Ireland DID improve massively as an integral part of the United Kingdom as it was constituted then. There were even legislation that was much better for the people than the equivalent in England.

Alas, much propaganda was spread then and since to suggest otherwise, especially Republican Provo propaganda.

“To-day the people, broadly speaking, own the soil. To-day the labourers live in decent habitations. To-day there is absolute freedom in local government and local taxation of the country. To-day we have the widest parliamentary and municipal franchise. The congested districts, the scene of some of the most awful horrors of the old famine days, have been transformed. The farms have been enlarged, decent dwellings have been provided, and a new spirit of hope and independence is to-day among the people. In towns legislation has been passed facilitating the housing of the working classes—a piece of legislation far in advance of anything obtained for the town tenants of England. We have a system of old-age pensions in Ireland whereby every old man and woman over seventy is safe from the workhouse and free to spend their last days in comparative comfort.”

John Redmond speaking in Dublin in July 1915

That says it all. For more detail, I recommend Liam Kennedy's "Unhappy The Land: The Most Oppressed People Ever, the Irish?" when constructively critiques Irish Nationalism , Republicanism, Unionism and Loyalism.

Jennybeans401 · 15/11/2022 14:54

Charles should abdicate, Camilla cannot be a Queen due to the past. It doesn't matter whether she's in the wrong or if they did wrong. It's just they are both not cut out for the role.

We need youthful energy and charisma, William would be vest to step in now. A young, dynamic monarch would make everything better.

Nuggetss · 15/11/2022 14:58

I like the history of the royal family but it's sad to think Prince George is being prepared for this role at the age of 9. That's a huge amount of pressure my DD the same age was going on about wanting to be an astronaut yesterday that's not on the cards for poor George.

MarieIVanArkleStinks · 15/11/2022 14:58

Charisma? William?

If we have to have a member of this monstrous family forced on us without recourse to the ballot box, I'd rather have Camilla.

Blossomtoes · 15/11/2022 15:52

Jennybeans401 · 15/11/2022 14:54

Charles should abdicate, Camilla cannot be a Queen due to the past. It doesn't matter whether she's in the wrong or if they did wrong. It's just they are both not cut out for the role.

We need youthful energy and charisma, William would be vest to step in now. A young, dynamic monarch would make everything better.

Of course she can be Queen, she already is - at the late Queen’s express wish. They’re fine, they look like modernising and slimming the monarchy down which is an excellent thing.

MintyFreshOne · 15/11/2022 18:01

Jennybeans401 · 15/11/2022 14:54

Charles should abdicate, Camilla cannot be a Queen due to the past. It doesn't matter whether she's in the wrong or if they did wrong. It's just they are both not cut out for the role.

We need youthful energy and charisma, William would be vest to step in now. A young, dynamic monarch would make everything better.

PW has zero charisma and tbh usually looks like he’d rather be anywhere else.

VladmirsPoutine · 15/11/2022 18:23

I haven't read the whole thread but yanbu. Abolishing the entire monarchy by the end of this week would be the best thing to happen to this country.

Poopoolittlerabbit · 15/11/2022 18:37

‘Of course she can be Queen, she already is - at the late Queen’s express wish.’

what if I have an express wish that my aunt Jean gets to be Queen? She’s cracking good fun, and smart too.
no? Oh, because by accident of my ‘ordinary’ birth I’d I need to earn the right to have that kind of influence and power rather than just have it given to me on a platter?

late Queen. She dead, time to move on from these archaic rules about being born into anything.

OP posts:
Snnowflake · 15/11/2022 18:58

VladmirsPoutine · 15/11/2022 18:23

I haven't read the whole thread but yanbu. Abolishing the entire monarchy by the end of this week would be the best thing to happen to this country.

Reaaallly - the monarchy are the least of our worries at the moment.

Poopoolittlerabbit · 15/11/2022 20:50

‘Reaaallly - the monarchy are the least of our worries at the moment.’

oh well then. Let’s just ignore them. Oh wait, we can’t, because despite the fucking STATE of the country, the energy crisis, underfunding of our health care, our schools, our care system… we’re still going to have a ‘coronation’ for a multi millionaire.

OP posts:
Dontwanttoberudeorwastetime · 16/11/2022 07:04

Snnowflake · 15/11/2022 18:58

Reaaallly - the monarchy are the least of our worries at the moment.

Agree.
I’m neither for nor against having a monarchy. If they were all disbanded by the end of the week, I really think it would have little real impact. It might actually make things worse and more unstable for a while but we’d soon return to the normal state of affairs.
While there are people who support having a monarchy and find great joy in having a monarchy, I’m happy to carry in living my life mostly ignoring them.

Poopoolittlerabbit · 16/11/2022 07:20

Mind you, with no monarchy,
what on earth would the Daily Mail fill its pages with?

OP posts:
derxa · 16/11/2022 07:58

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.

Oh dear

Trainbear · 16/11/2022 08:37

Flanjango · 14/11/2022 00:11

Yanbu. Times change. The monarchy is defunct as an entity. They have zero power constitutionally and are a throwback to empire (which is a while world of bad history). The buildings and chattels bring in tourists, the actual family do not.

If you think they have no power constitutionally then you are very very mistaken.
their power may not obvious, but she has served in the Royal Navy in Whitehall and has seen the “iron fist in a velvet glove”.
They have survived for centuries, adapting, giving the impression of change. They are not going to go because “ Yo, the kids don’t like it, innit?”.

Poopoolittlerabbit · 16/11/2022 11:16

‘iron fist in a velvet glove”.

Which is what’s wrong with have someone unelected in this position. It’s no better than having a dictator.

OP posts:
prh47bridge · 16/11/2022 11:50

Trainbear · 16/11/2022 08:37

If you think they have no power constitutionally then you are very very mistaken.
their power may not obvious, but she has served in the Royal Navy in Whitehall and has seen the “iron fist in a velvet glove”.
They have survived for centuries, adapting, giving the impression of change. They are not going to go because “ Yo, the kids don’t like it, innit?”.

Who has served in the Royal Navy in Whitehall?

Poopoolittlerabbit · 16/11/2022 12:20

‘Yo, the kids don’t like it, innit?”.’

which kids are these? I’m well over 18, tho plenty on here seem to think the 17 year old that Prince Andrew sexually abused wasn’t a child because the age of consent is 16…

OP posts:
Dotjones · 16/11/2022 12:23

Poopoolittlerabbit · 16/11/2022 12:20

‘Yo, the kids don’t like it, innit?”.’

which kids are these? I’m well over 18, tho plenty on here seem to think the 17 year old that Prince Andrew sexually abused wasn’t a child because the age of consent is 16…

Prince Andrew hasn't been found guilty of abusing anyone, you should be careful what you say.

Poopoolittlerabbit · 16/11/2022 13:39

‘Prince Andrew hasn't been found guilty of abusing anyone, you should be careful what you say.’

should I? Is the non-sweating, feckless little creep going to come after me for defamation, slander or whatever for talking about his paying millions to shut up the trafficked, 17 year old who told the world that he was a rapist?
I’m not sure he will. That’s the problem
with using your position, money and famous mummy to avoid the FBI and all attempts to bring you to any kind of justice - it leaves people thinking that maybe you are just what they say you are, a sex offender avoiding jail.

OP posts:
Poopoolittlerabbit · 16/11/2022 13:40

It’s bad enough when men make excuses for sex abusers and rapists, but it makes my heart sink when women do to. And we wonder why the conviction rates for rape are so low.

OP posts:
MissMarpleRocks · 16/11/2022 13:42

Poopoolittlerabbit · 16/11/2022 12:20

‘Yo, the kids don’t like it, innit?”.’

which kids are these? I’m well over 18, tho plenty on here seem to think the 17 year old that Prince Andrew sexually abused wasn’t a child because the age of consent is 16…

I wasn’t aware Prince Andrew had been found guilty in a court of law. I hope some of you never get to serve on a jury.

Prince Andrew would have no doubt been advised to settle a civil case like thousands of others just to make it go away & to save costs. I know I have done the same for clients as it’s often cheaper, usually quicker & therefore less stressful for the client. And that’s in the UK.

If I was acting for someone who’d had a case against him in a foreign jurisdiction I’d have been negligent not to advise the same. A client would be foolhardy not to settle.

TheKeatingFive · 16/11/2022 13:47

Prince Andrew would have no doubt been advised to settle a civil case like thousands of others just to make it go away & to save costs.

12 million for that though? That's 'saving costs'? And it's happened to 'thousands of others'?

Well I'll be blowed

Swipe left for the next trending thread