Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Trooping the colour booing

311 replies

theresalighttofindyou · Yesterday 10:54

AIBU to think this was well deserved?

Kate can glower at people as much as she wants but the monarchy is a rotten institution and people are getting more and more annoyed by it

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
MulberryBrandy · Yesterday 15:25

OneBusyFinch · Yesterday 15:18

if he had been the first born male, he would currently be our King though - that’s how that institution has been operating for centuries. He would be King!

There are still unanswered questions into who knew what about his activities within that institution - without Trump releasing the Epstein files, we may never have known anything about it. That’s why people protest because what other route do they have? Writing to your MP who has to swear allegiance to the monarch and, no doubt is hoping for a peerage in return for their service? - it’s all just one big gravy train.

People should also remember that the royals want you to think about them the way they want to be thought of - they would prefer the public not to be educated about how they operate and to apply critical thinking.

The pattern in the history of our kings is that there was a huge chance Andrew could have been king. The Queen's father and grandfather were both second sons. Male primogeniture stood until 2015.

MulberryBrandy · Yesterday 15:28

wordler · Yesterday 15:16

I think that’s partly for their own safety - they are always wildly out numbered by the crowds of people who want to see the event - the police have to think about public safety and crowd control.

And the completely not protesting, monarchy-loving Australian young woman was arrested and held by mistake by the police? Would you not concede that they are at least over zealous?

InterIgnis · Yesterday 15:29

soddingspiderseason · Yesterday 14:22

Have come to the conclusion that this thread is about sowing dissent and division, with no-one actually coming up with any sensible alternative to a constitutional monarchy. “Starving children”. Oh come on. You’d get President Farage if we were a republic and frankly, I’d rather see Kate and her kids than Farage and Musk riding around in a gold carriage.

Many other countries manage quite well without monarchy, constitutional or otherwise.

I’m not sure how a democratically elected Trump or Farage, that can also be democratically voted out of power, isn’t preferable to an unelected head of state that cannot be.

wordler · Yesterday 15:30

OneBusyFinch · Yesterday 15:18

if he had been the first born male, he would currently be our King though - that’s how that institution has been operating for centuries. He would be King!

There are still unanswered questions into who knew what about his activities within that institution - without Trump releasing the Epstein files, we may never have known anything about it. That’s why people protest because what other route do they have? Writing to your MP who has to swear allegiance to the monarch and, no doubt is hoping for a peerage in return for their service? - it’s all just one big gravy train.

People should also remember that the royals want you to think about them the way they want to be thought of - they would prefer the public not to be educated about how they operate and to apply critical thinking.

Of course people in government knew about a lot of Andrew’s unsavory activities.

The Foreign Office were escorting him all over the world to trade events.

The intelligence services will have been briefed on who he was in contact with.

We the public are only now finding out about all of this but our most senior politicians knew a lot of what was going on - and found it acceptable apparently.

Edward VIII was forced to abdicate because he was a Nazi sympathizer not because he wanted to marry a divorcee.

Parliaments managed to circumnavigate several people in more direct line to the throne to avoid getting a Roman Catholic monarch at a time when Catholics were considered divisive and dangerous to the leadership of the country.

Nofeckingway · Yesterday 15:37

The wealth that you are speaking of is a result of legacy and history . It's not like Charles can sell Buckingham Palace or the Gold Coach to fund anything else . The artefacts belong to the nation . The RF had nothing to do with Grenfell , blame the real culprits who were the developers and builders. As regards Xmas visits would you suggest that they snub the people who wanted to see them . These kids are being brought up to know that it is their duty to respect the traditions and try to be polite and respectful to other people . I think they were also aware that some people don't like the monarchy . What was Kate supposed to do but give an indication that she wasn't happy that her children were verbally abused . To be honest I would have loved Princess Ann to shout Naff Orf once again.

greenpolkadot55 · Yesterday 15:39

I didn't hear any booing but then I had muted it because I can't stand Clare Balding

wordler · Yesterday 15:42

MulberryBrandy · Yesterday 15:28

And the completely not protesting, monarchy-loving Australian young woman was arrested and held by mistake by the police? Would you not concede that they are at least over zealous?

Well the police can be overzealous or make mistakes on many occasions - Royal events or non Royal events/situations.

In crowd control situations they have to make dozens of risk assessments situations in very short spans of time - the goal is to prevent injuries or escalation physical altercations - it’s quite a difficult job.

Sahara123 · Yesterday 15:42

I think booing anyone is rude to be honest.

NDerbys32 · Yesterday 15:52

Booing and disrespecting young kids is pathetic and tantamount to emotional abuse

What their upbringing is, IMO, irrelevant. An easy target for someone to take their own life frustrations out on.

Shouting abuse at anyone else's kids in public is likely to lead to a confrontation, but cowards do it from behind crowd safety barriers.

Grown adults behaving like that? Please, get a grip.

DryTerryandJUNE · Yesterday 16:00

nomas · Yesterday 14:00

There is something queasy about them being trotted out for the great unwashed to bow and scrape to.

I was in the stands watching them going round in the carriages. I said to my friend, "they are quite literally being wheeled around on display". She thought they quite liked it, but we also both thought that they know they have to do it and look happy about it (whether they are or not) as a significant part of their job. Let's be honest, the military display is not much of a birthday for KC3, who would rather be reading a gardening magazine in his garden. It's for all of us, it's to keep us happy.
ETA. The King waved and a few people waved back. The PoW waved and the whole stand waved back. She is very popular!

JHound · Yesterday 16:20

AmyDudley · Yesterday 11:14

I'm anti monarchy, but booing children is a dick move. Not surprised Kate looked annoyed, I'd be very pissed off and protective if someone was verbally abusive to my children, especially if those children had no say in what they have been born into. Good for her for not pretending to just accept it.

They shouldn’t have the children out then.

perlana · Yesterday 16:21

I think for the future, they could get AI to put them all in carriage or an open top car, dress them up (differently for each year), age them appropriately and show the video on big screens on the day.

The RF can then sit at home drinking gin, in their PJs while counting their loot, and they won't hear boos or see Republic protesters.

It's the future innit. Even if the RF is firmly living in the past.

IsawwhatIsaw · Yesterday 17:05

wordler · Yesterday 15:08

In the past when the government behind the scenes knew that the next in line was very unsuitable to the job they were ‘managed’ out of the way.

And it’s very clear now that a lot of people in the government across both main parties cabinets knew what Andrew was up to.

So he would / will never make it to the throne.

Not always managed out of the way - Prince Albert Victor died young.
if Andrew had been first born ,we’d have no choice about the matter. These people are unelected and unaccountable .
at least politicians can be voted out.

wordler · Yesterday 17:13

IsawwhatIsaw · Yesterday 17:05

Not always managed out of the way - Prince Albert Victor died young.
if Andrew had been first born ,we’d have no choice about the matter. These people are unelected and unaccountable .
at least politicians can be voted out.

If he'd been first born and had been doing all the things we now know he was doing - the politicians who knew all about those activities at the time would have found a way to manage him out to prevent a disaster of a monarch. Or would have found a way to restrict his activities, possibly.

And actually the government - the representatives of the people have the power to get rid of the monarchy any time they want to - the monarch has no real power. If the political will was there, they would do it.

I've no doubt that if Andrew was next in line instead of William, the republican movement would be gaining great ground.

Lifeomars · Yesterday 17:15

ikeepforgetting · Yesterday 14:08

It isn't a binary choice between a King or a Trump-like all powerful president. Other Republics have presidents who perform the same ceremonial duties as the royal family might, but without the ridiculousness. You already have a system of government.

Exactly, other countries seem to function pefectly well without all this pomp and circumstance.

whoopsnomore · Yesterday 17:21

BrownTroutBluesAgain · Yesterday 13:23

Well that’s not true

Shall we get rid of them and shoot ourselves in the foot again like the 20% on private schools

Its all very short sighted

‘ Recent attempts to measure the size of the impact of the royal family on UK tourism have estimated the capital value of UK monarchy as a business to be £67.5 billion (up from £44 billion in 2012) and the annual contribution to the UK economy to be £1.766 billion.

https://www.regionalstudies.org
Impact of the UK Royal Family on tourism - RSA Main

Edited

You do know how popular a tourist site Versailles is , don't you?

whoopsnomore · Yesterday 17:24

NDerbys32 · Yesterday 15:52

Booing and disrespecting young kids is pathetic and tantamount to emotional abuse

What their upbringing is, IMO, irrelevant. An easy target for someone to take their own life frustrations out on.

Shouting abuse at anyone else's kids in public is likely to lead to a confrontation, but cowards do it from behind crowd safety barriers.

Grown adults behaving like that? Please, get a grip.

It was the institution being booed, not the "young kids". They were there because they are a cog in the royal machine, helping to perpetuate the idea that some humans are superior to others by virtue of the family they are born into.

BrownTroutBluesAgain · Yesterday 17:28

whoopsnomore · Yesterday 17:21

You do know how popular a tourist site Versailles is , don't you?

Yes of course
but people always throw that one out as justification

Clearly it’s irrelevant cost wise and in fact struggling hence the price increase

‘The Palace of Versailles generates an annual consolidated budget of roughly €100 million. With approximately 8 million visitors per year, roughly 60% of its revenue comes directly from ticket sales, while the rest is generated through commercial activities, partnerships, and state grants.
The revenue directly sustains the enormous cost of keeping the royal estate running:
Operating & Maintenance Costs: Routine upkeep of the massive site (gardening, watering, roofing, heating) costs about €15 million annually. 1]
Ticket Revenue Boost: To further support national heritage and offset rising operating costs, the Palace increased admission fees for non-European visitors. Full-access tickets during peak periods are priced at €35, a strategy expected to generate an additional €9.3 million in annual revenue’

Its not anywhere in the same league

Of note
the pp hasn't yet provided a non biased source to prove there would be no financial downturn.

IsawwhatIsaw · Yesterday 17:30

wordler · Yesterday 17:13

If he'd been first born and had been doing all the things we now know he was doing - the politicians who knew all about those activities at the time would have found a way to manage him out to prevent a disaster of a monarch. Or would have found a way to restrict his activities, possibly.

And actually the government - the representatives of the people have the power to get rid of the monarchy any time they want to - the monarch has no real power. If the political will was there, they would do it.

I've no doubt that if Andrew was next in line instead of William, the republican movement would be gaining great ground.

The monarch and royals wield soft power.
The Queen successfully lobbying for a completely unsuitable man- her son - to be trade envoy? There were already serious concerns about his behaviour and suitability.
Then she and Charles lobbying government ministers to secure tax advantages on their vast estates?
the lack of transparency over their vast wealth?
the Royals are a business and their aim is to protect themselves and the wealth.

Persephonia1966 · Yesterday 17:31

InterIgnis · Yesterday 15:29

Many other countries manage quite well without monarchy, constitutional or otherwise.

I’m not sure how a democratically elected Trump or Farage, that can also be democratically voted out of power, isn’t preferable to an unelected head of state that cannot be.

I think that countries fhG combine the head of state with the elected guy who does the stuff is problematic because it seems more likely to wind up with a cult of personality around the elected person. We have far less reverence towards the PM than Americans have traditionally had towards their president and I think that's a good thing. Countries like Ireland which have a ceremonial president and a taisoch to do things seem to get it more right.

Personally I would far rather have the trooping of the colour than a cage fight on the white house lawn complete with allegations against the wife of a former head of state being a man. The Trooping of the Colour has horsies.

ThisIsMyUsername0 · Yesterday 17:33

ilovesooty · Yesterday 13:30

If their parents want to put them in the public eye in full awareness that there's a growing republican movement in the country they'll have to accept that people are going to express an opinion in front of them.

And expressing that opinion doesn't make them spiteful cunts.

But the children haven't put themselves in that position. Yet they're being shouted at by a crowd of adults. How bloody scary that must've been for them.

Shameful behaviour and shame on anyone who is of the mindset that thinks it's ok.

MulberryBrandy · Yesterday 17:33

The Not My King movement has highlighted questions concerning Andrew's relationship with Epstein and how much the royals knew for so long. Andrew was loaned £12 million to settle the civil action against him,

Another question is concerning the fact that, all though now 8th, he is still in the line of succession. The King needs to address this. Canada, Australia and NZ have all called this out.

NDerbys32 · Yesterday 17:41

whoopsnomore · Yesterday 17:24

It was the institution being booed, not the "young kids". They were there because they are a cog in the royal machine, helping to perpetuate the idea that some humans are superior to others by virtue of the family they are born into.

So 'fair game" then?

That's poor mitigation, if indeed any at all

MrsShawnHatosy · Yesterday 17:48

Lifeomars · Yesterday 17:15

Exactly, other countries seem to function pefectly well without all this pomp and circumstance.

I find it really embarrassing when there’s a big state occasion and people go on about “how good we are” at this pomp and circumstance stuff, when our schools, hospitals and infrastructure are really shit.