"The Magnificent Seven", "What amazing clothes", "What adorable children" - AIBU to think that the Royal Family is just the Truman show for a lot of people

[cakeorwine]

Except the people actually know they are in it.

Such sycophancy. There is the role of the Head of State that the King fulfills but this is an obsession with them.

Their role just seems to sell newspapers now. To generate clicks in the media. And headlines.

They are just a family. I am sure there are plenty of other families with 'adorable' children, where the mum wears 'amazing clothes' (that people seem to want to to go out and buy)

AIBU to think that some of the headlines and the stories is just pure obsession and is almost putting them on this pedestal?

The Magnificent Seven indeed.

You think it’s fair. I think it’s ludicrous to think that’s fair when simultaneously begrudging the cost of the RF’s security. It’s an entirely inconsistent position in a constitutional monarchy.

I am sure that, like most of the rich, and the huge landowners they work rules to their advantage and our disadvantage
@Justasec321
I can remember the details but I think some of this finagling is in the public domain?

It strikes me as so utterly cynical and entitled. They own it all - put them out front
the more power they have the less they'll want to dirty themselves by engaging with the masses

You quoted a figure of the cost of the Royal Family.
Does that include security costs?

You haven't answered that question.

I can see the RF needs security. At the moment, they are a symbol of Britain.

So what does it cost? (And yes, we would need security for a Head of State as well)

But when people quote the cost of the RF, they omit the cost of security. There are also other things they omit but let's just stick with security

But I think it is about much more than getting dirty.

I think they (the royal men) literally hide behind the wives and children.

It is weak, selfish, self indulgent, sexist.

They really show us who they are.

Why don't we listen?

@Blossomtoes what @DrunkOnHim says is not inconsistent or ludicrous. It’s your defence of this archaic nonsense that is ludicrous.

No @Maximinimalist, it’s your failure to understand what a constitutional monarchy involves that’s ludicrous.

Does your figure for what it costs include security?

The RF needs security. What does it cost?

The misogyny is off the charts when it comes to the Royal Family and their diehard supporters.

Kate is loved because she plays a role of bearing children and behaving herself. No voice or personality is afforded to her other than a perfect well-behaved wife. How does that even accord with modern women.

Why don't we listen?
perhaps a combination of things which work somewhat synergistically, perhaps including, but not limited to:
-too many of us respond unquestioningly to authority
-for older people the monarchy are connected with the past, when it was thier heyday so they feel emotionally connected and cant help defending them
-monarchy understand that women & children are seen more sympathetically than men, more likely to be viewed as innocent, easier to trust.

I think they are increasingly out of step with the modern world & thier days are numbered.

Blossom - she is asking a question.

If you can answer it - great!

If not - fine.

But then I suppose the question becomes - why don't we know?

I see what you mean but I think there is more to i

Tbh Meghan is the best thing to happen to Will and Kate from a PR perspective.

They went from the Duke and Duchess of Dolittle to the saviours of the monarchy—all without having to change a thing.

They need to be writing H&M thank-you letters 😆

I understand perfectly what a constitutional monarchy means, though I would question whether it is so in practice given how the Queen was able to influence laws and ensure some laws did not apply to her.

The nature of the monarchy does not change the veracity of any of the points I made earlier. However, I accept that there will always be the red herrings of “constitutional monarchy”, “tourism” as if that makes any of the nonsense less nonsensical.

I doubt there are many 4 year olds wearing shorts and long socks on Christmas Day.

I would question whether it is so in practice given how the Queen was able to influence laws and ensure some laws did not apply to her
money talks and she had a lot of it, combined with the unique prestige & kudos attached to the monarchy= MASSIVE ability to make things go in their favour

@Soothsayer1 I think we often respond questioningly to authority actually. The difference when the royal family is involved is that we are not entitled to an answer.

The elderly are a relatively small % of the population.

-monarchy understand that women & children are seen more sympathetically than men, more likely to be viewed as innocent, easier to trust. I am not sure I agree with this. Why would that apply to the royal family when almost all other leadership positions in society are male centric? I think it is a lot more banal than that - weak, spoilt men that want all the benefits of being royal men but hide behind the frocks, the hats, the cost of this outfit, that giggle, the feuds, the this the that.
They can swan around having a great old time while we focus elsewhere.

No idea. What does security for seven former PMs cost? How much are parliamentary pensions costing us? Not a clue. There are literally thousands of people riding the UK gravy train yet the only ones people get hysterical about are the RF.

So when you said the RF cost £1.29 a year per person, that was not true.

That is a fair point Blssom.

Why not start a thread about it? I think this thread is focused on the royal family not general chat about security.

I don’t know whether it includes security. That doesn’t make it untrue, does it?

The Royal Family works on being better than us. We serve and curtesy to them. The prime ministers worked for us not just wave their hands and cut ribbons. If they accepted suitcases of cash from questionable people we have the choice to get rid of them.

Comparing prime ministers to the royal family is ridiculous. One serve us and we can get rid of them, the other says we are their subjects and serve them. For the pleasure, they wave, cut ribbons, play dress up, etc.

It doesn't

So it's untrue

A source

www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-57559653

For 2021-2022 the Sovereign Grant was set at £86.3m - equivalent to £1.29 per person in the UK. This does not include security costs.
However, work on Buckingham Palace, which is undergoing a 10-year refurbishment plan, drove up total spending for the year to £102.4m - an increase of 17% on the previous year.
Money from leftover Sovereign Grant funds from previous years was used to meet the shortfall.