Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

AIBU to suggest the Royal Family is no longer required

124 replies

cocktailclub · 27/12/2021 02:12

I feel they have become irrelevant.
Who cares that a 95 year old can't have Christmas at one of her country homes? It's headline news that she's staying at Windsor castle. What a joke.
The whole lot of them are pampered lazy entitled and should just be phased out.
We will still get money from tourrism because the history is fascinating. They can all live out their lives in luxury but enough is enough. They make political statements, break the law (allegedly) and require a whole heap of financial support.
Get rid .

OP posts:
User135644 · 27/12/2021 10:16

@driftcompatible

I agree. It's 2021. I bow to no-one.

If the Queen of any of her hangers-on turned up at my workplace I wouldn't curtsy, no 'ma'am' etc.

The upper class are not my betters.

They are not appointed by God.

She's welcome to a chat and a cup of tea.

'Your HIGHness'. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

How is this still a thing in the 21st Century.

It's entrenched in the English in particular to tug forelocks and believe in their betters. It's why they keep voting Tory, despite them taking the piss out of them.
Hodl · 27/12/2021 10:21

The RF's sole purpose is the preservation of the RF. Anything else is window dressing.
The Monarch isn't really a defence against politicians who go rogue, remember when Boris prorogued (?) Parliament?

I'd much prefer a HOS similar to what Ireland have. Its not just about the vast financial savings, it's the fact that none of us or our children - no matter how clever, talented they are - they can never become HOS. I think this is intrinsically wrong.

Just because dismantling the monarchy may be expensive and complicated doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

I was always rather ambivalent about them until I read 'And What do you do?' by Norman Baker. Their wealth and never ending greed is sickening and that's probably just the top of the iceberg.

Hodl · 27/12/2021 10:22

*tip not top. Silly phone!

NarcissaMalfoysManicure · 27/12/2021 10:25

They’re a bunch of lazy paedo-protectors.

Roussette · 27/12/2021 10:31

@Hodl

Same here. I read that book and it all changed for me. (Along with Andrew and his behaviour over decades). The book was written by someone who knows and was or is on the Privy Council. A complete eye opener but I agree, it's what we don't know that would be the eye opener. We are fed what the RF want us to know.

QueefofSheena · 27/12/2021 10:36

I’d like to see an end to it when the Queen dies, it’s increasingly ridiculous and outdated, and anyone who isn’t outraged at the Queen’s behaviour over Andrew isn’t paying attention.

I am curious to see what happens when Charles takes over. He seems to favour a far more streamlined version so perhaps he’ll surprise us once he gets the power to act.

BooksAndGin · 27/12/2021 10:45

I think it needs to end now.

The fact they are protecting Prince Andrew the pedo, says it all. They think they are above everyone else.

Needs to end when Elizabeth passes away.

Benjispruce5 · 27/12/2021 10:47

Agree OP. They are irrelevant. I think after the Queen has died, they need to scale right back.
Can you imagine if you were proposing the idea of one superior family to be funded by the people for no other reason other than
their birthright, these days ?

NandorTheRelentless · 27/12/2021 10:54

@MadMadMadamMim

Goodness, this is so boring. There have been comments on this topic for donkey's years with various people suggesting the Royal family are outdated, or should be got rid of.

In general, it appears to be a minority view and it's not going to happen so why waste thought or energy on it? If you don't care, what's it matter to you?

minority view

Really? Most of the people I know and things I read are anti monarchy. What actually are they good for?

Turn up and open things. Put their names to things...

hellsbells99 · 27/12/2021 10:56

I care.
YABU

Strugglingtodomybest · 27/12/2021 10:59

I agree OP, and said similar when the news was reporting on what the queen might say in her speech on Christmas Day. Who cares what she might say for goodness sake?! How is that news?

changingstages · 27/12/2021 11:00

YANBU. Once the queen dies that should be it. Of course this mental flagshagging country will roll out the BuT woT AbOWT tOOriSm shite but dear god what an embarrassment the whole lot of them are.

MintJulia · 27/12/2021 11:02

On the contrary, I think the monarch is more important than ever. The country is horribly divided over covid, brexit, we're in debt, we have the most extreme politics we have seen since the 70s. We have poor mental health, environmental concerns. With luck, Charles knowledge of the environment will be a useful influence.

I think we need them more than ever to provide some consistency and a unifying influence.

maya71 · 27/12/2021 11:14

When people say this, they never offer an alternative. The monarch is the head of state. If we didn't have a monarch, we would still need a head of state. Deciding on the best way for this to work would take a long time. If we had a president, the role of the prime minister would be completely different too. I would suggest that anyone looking to abolish the monarchy spends time familiarising themselves with the political system of the UK first.

The Royal family would still exist - you can't abolish them. The royal families of Russia, Germany etc still exist. Prince Philip's German relations were at his funeral and were called princes. They just no longer have power. The British Royal family are just the relations of the monarch.

A president would still need a residence, security etc. The Prime Minster has a house, offices and country residence provided. Having no monarch wouldnt mean no spending.

FinallyHere · 27/12/2021 11:20

@CheeseMmmm

  • When Saudi king visiting. Offered tour of estate. Land rover came he ushered to passenger seat. She hops in goes bombing round estate (driving skills etc role ww2 mechanic driver). He can't say no stop as she Queen. Women not allowed to drive Saudi.*

The version I read was that, as part of the planning for the visit, when the aides got together to agree protocol etc., one non negotiation point from the Saudi side was 'no female guards or drivers'.

Brilliant.

Not IMHO, enough to justify continuing the monarchy, but deeply satisfying and only slightly undermined by the fact that HM is treated as an honorary man when visiting many such states.

Hodl · 27/12/2021 11:21

Maya71
Whilst I agree that any HOS would cost money, I don't think that it would cost the estimated £350mn (including security) that the RF cost.

A pp mentioned Charles wants a more streamlined monarchy, which sounds good, however, does that mean that they will cost us less or the fewer that are there will just receive a bigger slice of the pie? As the Sovereign Grant can never go down!

maya71 · 27/12/2021 11:34

Maya71
Whilst I agree that any HOS would cost money, I don't think that it would cost the estimated £350mn (including security) that the RF cost.

I do agree that it would cost less than at present.

I think Charles's plan is to streamline everything to the monarch and their direct heirs which is a good thing imo. I don't know enough about how the sovereign grant is worked out to comment on who gets what but I did think only the Queen had it.

BooksAndGin · 27/12/2021 12:06

Maybe not abolish then but they shouldn't be entitled to tax payers money.
They have their own money, funds, businesses etc. They should use that to fund their lifestyles.

Mommabear20 · 27/12/2021 12:17

God save the Queen!

3peassuit · 27/12/2021 12:23

Their time has passed. It’s time for something new but I haven’t got a clue what to replace it with.

Justkeeppedaling · 27/12/2021 12:38

You can't "get rid" of the royal family - gone are the days when we chopped off the heads of the aristocracy just for being the aristocracy.

We could however remove the monarch as head of state, and from head of the C of E. But the RF would still be there, being famous and cutting ribbons etc. The only difference would be that they would probably commercialise themselves in the way that Prince Harry has done.

Roussette · 27/12/2021 12:45

At least they'd be paying for themselves then, as Harry does

SueSaid · 27/12/2021 13:34

'am curious to see what happens when Charles takes over. He seems to favour a far more streamlined version so perhaps he’ll surprise us once he gets the power to act.'

Yes think it will be far more scaled back rather than the current grand affair we have when any of them pitch up anywhere.

'At least they'd be paying for themselves then, as Harry does'

Pays for himself by trading on his royal connections. How very noble .

Roussette · 27/12/2021 13:50

Pays for himself by trading on his royal connections

Yeah, he really should have a face transplant and go and live in the Brazilian jungle rather than be Harry, grandson of the current monarch 😂

shabbytabby · 27/12/2021 13:52

Yes, you are.