Father’s Day photo

[Mylovelygreendress]

Latest photo

A true interest in the subject matter.

Yeah.

Very quick to call us "gushers" and "fawners", too. Honestly don't care, but it is so scripted and unoriginal, hardly a well thought out argument for a republic.

So many people in despair and troubled by it. I can't imagine having so little in my life to be triggered by a family photo.

Best thread ever 😂😂

Royal supporters - hey, nice pic, really shows what a close loving family they are. Really like it and surprised they even bothered after the last time

Republicans - stiff! unseemly! horizons wonky! how DARE they turn their backs! parasites! despairing! fawning! fake! levels are wrong! kvetch kvetch kvetch ad nauseam.

Picking fly shit out of pepper indeed.

I've been posting on the thread since early Monday morning, so it's rather unfair to suggest I leapt to call people "gushers" and "fawners" given that I observed it for well over two days before drawing that conclusion.

No, I don't think it's unfair at all, because those are the words you used about people you know very little about who disagree with you about the purpose and usefulness of the RF. They are always used, like heat is warm and water is wet, people who basically support the RF are "gushers and fawners". Unimaginative and unlikely to convince any of us to embrace republicanism.

To clarify, it was the 'very quick' I was disputing, not my use of those words, which I stand by - not by any means applied exclusively to people on Mumsnet, it's a characteristic of many royalists worldwide.

The whole 'family photo' thing is part of the illusion the Royals are trying to create - to draw in supporters to keep the next generation in unearned luxury, and the next, and the next. It's sickening.

If it helps your nausea, it may be worth remembering that even if the monarchy were to be abolished tomorrow, the royals would continue to live in 'unearned luxury' for generations to come. In fact, they'd be able to enjoy their 'unearned luxury' with greater freedom, without having to bother about 'net contributors' complaining that their hard earned taxes paid for Kate's Canon.

The thing is @PracticallyYesterday you’ve clearly got to a point where you dislike the current Royal Family members so much that anything and everything that they do makes you angry - bit like people get when they fall out of love with their spouse and their very breathing sounds makes them murderous.

I imagine that’s very difficult - you’re more than ready for the divorce and the majority of people around you keep telling you what a great guy he is.

But there will never be a republic until you (plural republicans you) can show the majority of the country that there’s something better on the other side of the major upheaval of a big change like this.

Something that is better than just a President Blair or Johnson. Something that preserves all the good bits of the current system and protects against corruption and greed breaking up some of our nation’s best assets.

That thought increases my nausea, as you probably knew it would.

Unimaginative and unlikely to convince any of us to embrace republicanism

I'm fussy about the company I keep, as well.

I can't say I gave your reaction that much thought, other than to wonder if you're always this pompous.

Are you?

If something or someone makes me nauseous, I tend to avoid it, as the saying goes, like the plague. Not actively and repeatedly seek out somewhere where I have to face it and talk about it.

Having nausea triggered by the mere thought of something sounds like a severe allergic reaction that a doctor should be looking at. Unless this is some weird form of aversion therapy.

You forgot forelock tuggers .

Obviously, finding something better is an enormous topic which a post on Mumsnet can't really scratch the surface of.

My starting point would be an apolitical elected head of state - in a non-hereditary position, the elections held perhaps every 10 years - but with a clause that a 'vote of no confidence' could be passed in certain circumstances, if they were guilty of the equivalent of 'gross misconduct'.

Their remit would focus on charitable and diplomatic activity; the connection with Parliament would be removed. Roles such as head of the COE, Armed forces etc. would pass to senior figures in those organisations.

The elected head of state would be provided with accommodation and staff suitable for diplomatic entertaining, family accommodation and very modest 'bases' elsewhere if needed; e.g. a flat in London - all occupied only for their tenure in role.

The present Royal Family would give up their state funded accommodation and this would either be fully opened up to the public on a 'stately homes' basis, or put to other purposes such as accommodation for use by charities.

Incidentally, there would be nothing to prevent William standing as elected Head of State if he wanted the position. The key point is to remove the hereditary element and give the public the ability to choose the person to stay or go.

Remember that we were only one tragedy away (until the birth of William) from having Andrew as our present king. That, for me, is one of the strongest pro-republican arguments.

@PracticallyYesterday no, there was never a risk of Andrew becoming King, because Parliament is sovereign. They determine who the monarch is, and have done so in the past. The last troublesome one they got rid of was Edward VIII. There's no way a Succession Council would allow someone like Andrew or now, someone like Harry, to have that level of responsibility.
It only goes on hereditary principles with the agreement of Parliament.

Those are great talking points - I agree a longer term is good for stability in an elected head of state role too. I’d also like a system where there was a training period before assuming the role - so a deputy type position that then becomes the top job.

Your point about the threat of Andrew is a good one - I actually think that’s the only chance of a republic within the next 50 years at least - the heir is someone completely unsuitable - I very much suspect if the Waleses all stood down and Harry was the next option Republic would find themselves in a much stronger position.

I suspect that’s why there’s so much vitriol from certain quarters towards the Waleses because they are very popular with the public and shore up the monarchy for a good while.

No, @wordler , there's no threat of Andrew.

but with a clause that a 'vote of no confidence' could be passed in certain circumstances, if they were guilty of the equivalent of 'gross misconduct'

And who decides those certain circumstances and gross misconduct and passes this vote if the link with Parliament is removed and Parliament no longer has sovereignty?

And that's just one question. I'd love to know who'd want to do what's essentially a job for a middle ranking civil servant with no perks. Although it would stop Blair standing, so not all bad.

I suspect that’s why there’s so much vitriol from certain quarters towards the Waleses because they are very popular with the public and shore up the monarchy for a good while

I think it’s more a case that the Waleses are in the way of their preferred option for King and Queen, rather than a dislike of the monarchy itself 😆

I meant more of AN Andrew.

A highly unsuitable heir - and you’re right Parliament could remove and replace but in today’s day and age that would weaken the hereditary principle a lot more than in the past and you’d find a lot more people questioning the system.

So say the Waleses all stepped away - and we are faced with Harry - Parliament decides he is unsuitable - okay so then it’s Archie - no? Not brought up in the UK, too American, Lili? Same problem, now we are at Andrew and it’s a god no for him. Okay so Beatrice? She’s the one?

You see the issue - it starts to look ridiculous.

Ah yes - I wasn’t really referring to THAT strand of vitriol!

It’s very common among the staunch republicans to batter W&K, and the Middletons too - they are mad that those resilient Middleton genes have breathed new life into the institution.

The monarchy has always been a bit of a lottery. Sometimes you got the brilliant war leaders, the law givers, sometimes people who were utterly unsuited, poor things (Henry VI), the despots, the oafs, the inspirational, the long lived, the children. The only thing that makes it in any way fair in terms of the family is primogeniture, now thankfully based on firstborn not sex. We are not likely to get the Witan back to overide it.

Their power is now not absolute and hasn't been for centuries and that is the way it should be, if we are to have an hereditary monarchy at all. The wings of power are long clipped. I can accept the argument for a republic without thinking that an elected HoS is going to be in any way better for the country than what we've ended up with, after all these long years.

No, starts to look less ridiculous, because it is more considered.
Excluding Harry from the line of succession could cut out Archie and Lilibet. A good way forward would be to ban those overseas from being in the LoS. Unfortunately, Harry would probably run back here toot sweet and they'd have to find another reason, but hey ho.