This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Am I the only who finds the royal family's educational qualifications embarrassing?

Scroll to see replies

I don't want to turn this into a generic "monarchists vs republicans" thread but point 2 is nonsense considering France has no problem attracting tourists despite no longer having a monarchy. Tourists come here to see the palaces and so on, not the royals themselves - no reason why that still couldn't happen if we became a republic.

In response to the OP's point - yes, you're right, but the basis of monarchy is being born into the particular position, it has nothing to do with demonstrating intelligence or aptitude. So yes, you make a reasonable point...but it's not really the most relevant argument against the monarchy imho.

When did they stop their monarchy?

Reply 21

username1317208

That normally happens. They're still human beings.

Reply 22

Birkenhead

Original post by Jack Robinson

I shall not deign to favour that with a constructive reply, all I shall deign to confer upon this gathering, and you in particular, is the notion that perhaps in my haste I might have missed out an essential grammatical something or two.

And I'll add that Prince William hasn't got the exact opposite of extenuating circumstances - incriminating circumstances.

What?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 23

Jack Robinson

Original post by Birkenhead

What?

Has, I meant HAS. My heartfelt apologies.

Reply 24

Birkenhead

Original post by Jack Robinson

Has, I meant HAS. My heartfelt apologies.

And what might these be?

Reply 25

a-witty-name

I remember a newspaper poll in a pro-royal article, saying "confidence at record high" just because 75% of people felt the third in line would eventually be king. The truth was hidden in another question, particularly as this was during the Royal media craze because of babies and weddings:

Q: The Royal family receives £36.1m a year from the taxpayer-funded Sovereign Grant. Is this good value for money.

43% Yes, 40% No, 17% Don't know.

In other words, a minority thought the Royals were worth it, just a week after a new prince was born.

So no doubt as generations go on the Royals will be even more sneered at, but there won't be 'revolution'. Revolution only happens when everyone is dying or being tortured, and the risk of prison and torture or death is not much worse than what they have now, and millions of people need to feel this way. We will forever have royalty, as well as MPs and PMs who don't get fired when it turns out they lied in their job interview, are stealing money, are breaking the law in some way, because we still live comfortable lives, no matter how many people post "skint" on Facebook.

Via their Blackberry.

Original post by tengentoppa

2. Removing them would be bad for the economy (tourism etc.). Also, too much hassle.

Tourists come to see the buildings, not the royals themselves. Most don't know any royals beyond the Queen.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 26

Aniaa

seems that we have British Robespierre here.
___________
I'm not from UK so I actually don't care who rules over you but I agree that its unfair that 'royal people' go to good unis while having bad notes. Ohhh, and I think you guys are too fond of your new baby prince

Reply 27

Chief Wiggum

Original post by a-witty-name

Tourists come to see the buildings, not the royals themselves. Most don't know any royals beyond the Queen.

lol, you think most people don't know about Will and Kate...?

Reply 28

Jack Robinson

Original post by Birkenhead

And what might these be?

Original post by Birkenhead

And what might these be?

Consternations, deep ones because when drunk I can and do readily and unabashedly abandon all ppunctuation/grammar/things of that ilk and later I sorley sorely regret it..

Reply 29

a-witty-name

Original post by Chief Wiggum

lol, you think most people don't know about Will and Kate...?

Not before the media drive.

Reply 30

laurenatlantic

Original post by Jack Robinson

Yes, considering Prince William's gotten himself into Cambridge, and though the course isn't a conventional one, I don't think anybody gotten in with more mediocre A levels than his. Then there's prince charles our future king, he's done 5 O levels and TWO A levels gettings Bs and Cs AND he got HIMSELF into Camb as well. Then there's the others who've done way sub-par subjects such Georgraphy, PE, politics etc for A level and have still gotten awful grades - Bs and Cs, the like. Then there's the cherry on the pie, the Queen herself - she's got no qualifications AT ALL according to the Telegraph.
Am I the only one who finds this disturbing? Surely not? We're being ruled by a pack of dunces. They admitted it themselves (Princess Diana did, at least)! What are we waiting for??? REVOLUTION!!!!!!

A, B and C's are NOT horrible grades, however U's are.
I don't think you need qualifications to run the country, they're doing an alright job of it at the moment..

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 31

midnightice

Original post by Jack Robinson

Yet another pretentious student on the forum thinking qualifications are the epitome of accomplishment... *sigh*

Reply 32

Chief Wiggum

Original post by a-witty-name

Not before the media drive.

Yes but with the global coverage of the royal wedding etc, they're probably the ones giving us a lot of publicity recently.

Reply 33

Jack Robinson

Original post by midnightice

Yet another pretentious student on the forum thinking qualifications are the epitome of accomplishment... *sigh*

um no I don't think that, all I sadi washtat their qualifications are damning. everry duffer is getiting A*s today and all the ROYALS ould come up with was Bs and Cs? it's embarrrassing. OBAMA went to HARVARD.

Reply 34

Polecat

Original post by tengentoppa

1. We're not being ruled by them. They're merely figureheads
2. Removing them would be bad for the economy (tourism etc.). Also, too much hassle.
3. I do agree royals should not get into uni on account of their status. It should be meritocratic.

Have to comment, because I am tired of this flimsy argument. Tourism? Out of the twenty most popular tourist attractions in the UK, only one of them is related to the royals: number 17, Windsor Castle. And like the guy a few above me said, it's the buildings people are interested in, not the people!
And figureheads or not, the Queen is our Head of State. How was she elected? Oh wait, she wasn't. You're right, it should be meritocratic.

And back to the original point of the thread, it is embarrassing. But that's because we still give status to whoever happens to fall out of the royals' womb, rather than award the position to someone talented, who works hard, and is actually part of our society.

Reply 35

Clip

Original post by Jack Robinson

Then there's prince charles our future king, he's done 5 O levels and TWO A levels gettings Bs and Cs AND he got HIMSELF into Camb as well.

Most apparent intellectuals on TSR would struggle to get 5 O levels from the 1950s, never mind the A levels.

Reply 36

Jack Robinson

Original post by Clip

Most apparent intellectuals on TSR would struggle to get 5 O levels from the 1950s, never mind the A levels.

ah, fair point Clip, best point raised yet, pos rep making a beeline for you, CLIP

Reply 37

tengentoppa

Original post by Polecat

You didn't have to comment. About 3 other people have said the exact same thing. I get it.

Reply 38

Ronove

Original post by Aniaa

You need to not judge the British public by the British media. Especially when it comes to the Royals. There is massive coverage whether anyone gives a **** or not.

Reply 39

midnightice

Original post by Jack Robinson

It isn't embarrassing. Like you said, any idiot can get an A*; I know a lot of very dumb people with great grades. This just shows that grades mean nothing. Why would a member of the Royal family even try that hard in their exams when they don't need to to succeed in their life? They have everything on a plate for them.