Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Royal Family

197 replies

TedTheCat · 28/04/2024 22:48

I was chatting to friends earlier today who had mixed opinions on the Royals and whether they support them.

I would prefer not to have a Royal Family, but wonder what other people think.

YABU - Keep the Royal Family

YANBU - Get rid of the Royal Family

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
OnlineO · 29/04/2024 10:10

CelesteCunningham · 29/04/2024 09:53

If your feelings depend on the individual in the hot seat, then you're not a royalist. The whole point is that we don't get to choose, we're stuck with whoever we get.

Fair point - hence the 'quite' but not fully. I shouldn't have used Royalist at all though - you're right. .

I love having a Royal family but, yes, it is dependent on who is in the hot seat.

So for now, I want to keep them and I hope that continues - all the current working members of the Royal family are keepers.

peakygold · 29/04/2024 10:17

CurlewKate · 29/04/2024 09:30

Not sure where my "and Spain" came from! But France seems able to support tourism without a monarchy.....

We can't compete with France! Even their weather is better than ours!

MummyJ12 · 29/04/2024 10:26

Have you seen the private jet that Lord Cameron has been flying around in? It’s a perfect example of our hard earned Tax Payers money being wasted on the elected and unelected government. We can’t be trusted to put someone in power. I’ll keep our Royal Family thanks.

MummyJ12 · 29/04/2024 10:27

Found photos online.

Royal Family
SpinyNorma · 29/04/2024 10:30

MummyJ12 · 29/04/2024 10:26

Have you seen the private jet that Lord Cameron has been flying around in? It’s a perfect example of our hard earned Tax Payers money being wasted on the elected and unelected government. We can’t be trusted to put someone in power. I’ll keep our Royal Family thanks.

32 Squadron planes aren't "private" they are owned by the state through the RAF and government ministers only get to use them if they aren't needed for the royal family.

MummyJ12 · 29/04/2024 10:35

OneWorldly4 · 29/04/2024 08:14

For keeping Andy, get rid of the lot.

You do realise that Bill Clinton was one of Epstein’s closest friends and confidants? The same Bill Clinton that was the POTUS? He is just as guilty if not arguably more implicated in the scandal as Andrew who remains disgraced and not working as part of the Royal Family. Bill Clinton hasn’t been cancelled has he?

LakeTiticaca · 29/04/2024 10:42

Keep them . There's enough people in this country who want to crush our history and our traditions. Just leave us alone!!!

HampdenRadius · 29/04/2024 10:47

If I was designing the system from scratch, I wouldn’t design a constitutional monarchy. I’m not a huge royal enthusiast, and I think it’s difficult to make an argument why they should exist in the modern world.

That said, I don’t feel massively strongly about getting rid of them, l like the King and Queen, and don’t see any massive harm in retaining them. I also think there is some value from having at a head of state who stands apart from politics, and provides stability and continuity.

CurlewKate · 29/04/2024 11:10

@MummyJ12 "You do realise that Bill Clinton was one of Epstein’s closest friends and confidants?"

How is that remotely relevant?

LightSpeeds · 29/04/2024 11:14

A few members aside, they're one of the only good things about this miserable shit-show of a country. Most of them are decent, hard-working people.

Nanny0gg · 29/04/2024 11:16

widgitfidgit · 29/04/2024 07:01

I have no strong feeling about them. Quite happy for them to stay, but I really do think we should update things! Why in this day and age are we bowing to other humans. I could just never do that. Happy to shake hands and be polite

They don't actually expect bowing and curtseying any more. Completely voluntary for those that like tradition

ThursdayTomorrow · 29/04/2024 11:18

We would all have to pay more taxes without them - they bring a lot more money in to the country than they receive.

Nanny0gg · 29/04/2024 11:21

cyclamenqueen · 29/04/2024 09:10

Spain have a King and Queen and went completely mad last year over the 18th birthday of Princess Leonore , there was acres and acres of coverage of her and her sister . Constant scandals in the wider royal family .

One problem with getting rid of the wider family is the need for people to do visits etc. most people seem unaware that the majority of visits made by the royals are requested by organisations. You write in and request say William and they write back and say he’s busy but you can have Edward or Duchess of Gloucester or whoever . At the moment the offices are over whelmed with requests but no one to offer. I suppose the aim would be that people stop asking , they become less visible and eventually fade away .

And organisations that have them say they have a positive effect on awareness, fundraising etc and they tend to be wanted by said organisations

And the royals have done good -Duke of Edinburgh's Award, Princes Trust, Earthshot...

Many praised the Queen and now the King for their guidance on diplomatic/world issues.

MummyJ12 · 29/04/2024 11:22

CurlewKate · 29/04/2024 11:10

@MummyJ12 "You do realise that Bill Clinton was one of Epstein’s closest friends and confidants?"

How is that remotely relevant?

Because he was a head of state when involved. (This is absolutely relevant!)

Allergictoironing · 29/04/2024 11:24

I think that also many do not realise the vast amounts of public money they are given and for what?

A very large chunk of that goes on the upkeep of those palaces and castles (over 50%), which otherwise would have come from the public purse in another way or from a different budget. And for providing the facilities and hosting state events e.g. visiting heads of state - they want to have a state visit with the monarch, not just a Prime Minister (even Trump), garden parties. You can see the full Sovereign Grant accounts for 2022-23 here . Staffing is another big cost, and the staff aren't there mainly to service the members of the Royal Family but the properties themselves so would still be needed to maintain places like Windsor Castle & Buckingham Palace.

You also have to bear in mind that back in the 18th century a deal was agreed whereby the crown estate properties became the responsibility of the Government with the monarch getting a "cut" of this - until then, the monarch paid all government expenses out of their own pocket.

I'd like a smaller role, certainly nothing that is in theory political.

They have zero political power now anyway

And make everybody else pay for their own security, even on engagements.

Ah, so you expect them to carry out official functions without any protection? Sort of like expecting people who work in hazardous conditions to supply their own PPE.

Keep the castles as tourist attractions, give Will, Kate and the two others twelve months notice to vacate to Balmoral, where they can live out their days in obscurity.

And Sandringham, and Gatcombe Park, and Highgrove, and a few others mostly (but not exclusively) in Scotland. All of which are privately owned by the family.

CurlewKate · 29/04/2024 11:33

@MummyJ12 "Because he was a head of state when involved. (This is absolutely relevant!)"

Being a HofS does not ensure probity. Neither does being royal.

Grenwyn · 29/04/2024 11:46

They are a huge part of our history and culture, I can't imagine why British people want to eradicate their own heritage. They also bring in revenue.

MummyJ12 · 29/04/2024 11:48

On that we agree @CurlewKate

Another poster mentioned Andrew.
Andrew lost his job as a working royal because of the association with Epstein, whereas Bill Clinton who was an elected head of state, didn’t. He is still working today the same as if the scandal hadn’t happened.
Being a republic would not indemnify us against such scandals and arguably we would be more open to it, when you think of the corruption surrounding the American government and presidency especially.

RhubarbAndGingerCheesecake · 29/04/2024 11:53

There would need to be a viable alternative. The monarch is the Head of State. If there was no monarch, there would need to be a president instead.

It would mean major constitutional upheaval.

We may get a monarch so bad we decide it's worth the problems and money all that would all cause but at the minute I'm not wild about Royals but not sure it's worth hassle and money to get rid of the monarch.

LoftyTurtle · 29/04/2024 11:57

I'm not a staunch supporter, but so long as they continue to bring in revenue to the UK via tourism and do their publicity side of their role (eg helping shine the light on certain charities etc) I'm fine with them staying. Although I do think they could do with modernising to an extent, although I hate that phrase but... you get what I mean hopefully

SpeedyDrama · 29/04/2024 11:58

Grenwyn · 29/04/2024 11:46

They are a huge part of our history and culture, I can't imagine why British people want to eradicate their own heritage. They also bring in revenue.

English heritage, Scottish and even German/French heritage. But the Royals are not part of Welsh one, despite the false titles they give themselves. Dont lump all British people in together, they hold little to no worth to many of us.

So many seem to be desperately holding on to the idea of quintessential Britishness, and yes perhaps when Liz was still here there was still that old feeling of pomp and circumstance. Without her, the rest of them have been laid bare, from mere posh performances turning up with faux smiles/sympathetic nods down to the hangers on and just plain perverse. They do nothing, literally nothing. Anyone actually looking into their ‘working royal’ status see they don’t actually do anything of value. Overbloated and over paid mascots, that’s all they are.

CurlewKate · 29/04/2024 12:02

@MummyJ12 "Andrew lost his job as a working royal because of the association with Epstein"

Not just because of his association with Epstein, but because he was accused of sex crimes.

And it's an interesting definition of "losing his job"......

LoftyTurtle · 29/04/2024 12:04

Although I did have a friend once get absolutely LIVID with me that I chose to work the day of the queen's funeral. I had an important work event on that day (I support young adults with tertiary education and the day of the queen's funeral was a big exam for them that absolutely couldn't be postponed or changed). I don't think the Queen would have given 2 shits that I, a mere pleb, didn't watch her funeral because I was supporting my students lol

yesmen · 29/04/2024 12:07

Wolfpa · 29/04/2024 06:29

They currently bring in more money then they cost, how would you replace the lost income?

Often trotted out but never backed up…

Swipe left for the next trending thread