Are you in favour of the Royal Family?

[enzomari]

DM and I were discussing this last night, she's now in her Eighties and used to really like the Queen (not so much Phillip for some reason) but now really isn't bothered and thinks the RF, as is, should be abolished . I've always been a Republican but I was surprised at DM as she always seemed very pro RF but actually was pro the late Queen.

IMHO it seems so past it's sell by date but I'd be interested to know others opinions.

Why? Is Andrew about to be king? Didn't know that.

Andrew may as well be king - he faces no consequences for his offences

I'm a bit neutral on them - I think they do help by being the 'public face' but at the same time there needs to be transparency about their financial affairs and they shouldn't be allowed to hoard such vast sums of money

There’s more than their financial affairs which is murky .
I think Andrew is the distraction from the rest of them

@UKisgaslit can you elaborate out of interest?

Agree, he's the useful idiot. When they can't use Harry to distract, it then becomes Andrew

Bit by bit, different dodgy dealings are being uncovered and I don't think this will stop

I assume that poster's point is that only an accident of birth order prevented Andrew being king, because that's what you get with a monarchy based on birth order in a bloodline (and formerly male precedence) -- no choice. A monarchy involves accepting as monarch whoever is next in line, regardless of suitability, temperament, political leanings, ineradicable womanising, or far worse.

If it weren't for Wallis Simpson, you'd have had an open Nazi sympathiser on the throne for a lot longer than three hundred odd days.

Look at what we know about Andrew - the same and worse could well apply to others in that family
This has been made reference to many times on these boards so I assume you are familiar with Peter Ball, Lauren’s van der post, Mountbatten ( court case and FBI files)

Mountbatten seemed awful, very shady. Criminal really.

It's true I don't know much about the others.

Charles has also had bags of cash / money for ‘honours’ issues but they just ‘went away’
Handy being above the law

Mountbatten was a lot more shady . Look up the planned court case in Belfast .

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/child-abuse-allegations-against-queens-cousin-lord-mountbatten-to-be-heard-in-be/

Im still haunted by this- links to central London too

Had Charles and Di been unable to conceive (a not very rare occurrence) he would be next in line.

Mountbatten was extremely close to Charles, wasn't he? I heard about M's relationships with young boys. I'm not suggesting Charles.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/18/prince-andrew-opaque-finances-calls-for-register-royal-interests

Yes. His personal Aide was named Fawcett the Fence for that very reason. He kept resigning then coming back. He could be working behind the scenes even now for all we know

Worth reminding ourselves that Charles is also head of the Church of England. In a very real and royal sense. Maybe he needs a little light grilling as to WTF was going on there when his late mother was also head (in a very real and royal way) ?

I am sick and tired of Schrodinger's royals who are simultaneously just figureheads and yet the destination for a fucktonne of money power and privilege.

yes to the above . We are the useful idiots not just Andrew , for putting up with this bullshit .

Of course I imagine this above the law family provide shelter for lots of other undesirables, who will be keen for con to continue . A lot can be brushed under the carpet when you are in with the Windsors

If Andrew had been born first he would have led a very different life, certainly wouldn't have been involved with Koo Stark or married Sarah Ferguson, so the what ifs are pointless really.

I'm not so sure. Charles being the heir to the throne didn't stop him being involved, for instance, with a married woman, before and after his own marriage, and making a very stupid decision about who to marry.

And was Sarah Ferguson so very different to Diana -- both young, from impeccable bloodlines, not terribly bright and remarkably poorly-educated, both struggled with disordered eating, both marriages in trouble within five years, after both brides had produced the two expected children etc etc.

Yes, I get that. Andrew is currently, what, 7th or 8th in line. If he had been 1st or 2nd in line currently, his attitude might be completely different due to upbringing, training etc.

As for an elected Head of State and those saying why would we end up with the likes of Farage or Johnson when we could have David Attenborough (who would likely very sensibly refuse the 'honour'), the way the UK public are, we'd probably end up with Katie Price or some Love Island contestant. Or President McPresident Face.

I'm not so sure. Charles being the heir to the throne didn't stop him being involved, for instance, with a married woman, before and after his own marriage, and making a very stupid decision about who to marry.

Sorry to bore on, but history (y'know that thing that royalists insist is the reason for us having to put up with a monarch) tells us that the entire existence of the Church of England is predicated upon the testosterone fuelled whims of a tyrant. Henry six-wives would be proud of his (extremely remote) descendant

That would be a marvellous notion but given the royals haven't been arsed to update their register of official gifts for four years expecting them to compile a register of interests might be a bit of a unicorn.

chances are he would still have been an arrogant thick grifter tho

Isn't "arrogant thick grifter" just using 3 words to cover the modern definition of "monarch" ? They aren't warriors. They aren't statesmen. They aren't mystics. They aren't creatives. Their only claim is a bloodline that is allegedly blessed by the almighty themselves (and they fiddled that). Which really carries fuck all weight with me, and I suspect you.

They just are. Anything beyond that is a bonus.

By all means, keep them, if you want to pursue the idea that nothing should ever change. However, a lot of now free peoples, and women would be rather upset to know that the reason we didn't abolish slavery or give women the vote was "because it's always been like that". Which I find is almost the perfect reason for changing something .....