To think Prince George will never be King?

[SerfTerf]

Or if he is, the next generation won't be?

We were talking about it at lunch. I just have the strong feeling now that the monarchy will fizzle out at some point in the next 50-100 years.

It's not an active "want" just a notion.

Two of us talking earlier felt similarly but the other three were aghast.

So, AIBU?

I am offended by the wealth. I think a neutered hereditary head of state I.e. Monarchy is fine.

I expect the deal Charles made to be allowed to marry camilla is that he will abdicate in favour of William as this would save public perceptions of the monarchy.

I think this is why William has married a commoner and is trying to be as ordinary as he can possibly seem.

I agree with batteriesallgone, Charles will absolutely destroy the monarchy. He's arrogant and out of date, why should we tolerate him?

That's probably why the queens hanging on for all she's worth. She knows Charles could be its downfall.

Sorry, I don’t seem to be able to write short and pithy posts. No matter how much I try, it ends up as an essay:

I can understand the usefulness of an apolitical head of state that is a kind of stand-in for the nation – the police, and especially the armed forces, swear an oath to the monarch, rather than to the government. And Acts of Parliament only come into effect when they’re signed by the monarch. All that may be a symbolic distinction, though. I suspect history buffs could explain more succinctly why that kind of distinction was important in the past.

The pomp and circumstance that’s associated with the monarch is the kind of spectacle that we’re very good at. The recent state visit of the King and Queen of Spain is a good example. For the main procession, around 1,000 horses and riders took part, and that was amazing to watch, and of course makes a great visual that would have been shown to many countries overseas. I think that, and all the other military ceremonials is what tourists are interested in.

But what irritates me is the overblown protocol of the institution, still slavishly followed in the present day. There was a photo of Princess Anne making a deep curtsey to the King of Spain. I thought that was cringingly embarrassing. Some while ago, the Queen sent out a note specifying who in the RF was to curtsey to whom. IIRC, if it’s Charles, Camilla, and Kate, then Kate has to curtsey to Camilla, but if it’s Camilla, Kate, and William, then Camilla has to curtsey to Kate. The status of “curtseyed-to” depends on which husband is present and where he is in the hierarchy. I’m not sure if either Camilla or Kate, on their own, has to curtsey to the York Princesses, given that the latter are “blood princesses” (as Andrew likes to remind us all) rather than being a married-in-commoner to a man who is higher in the list of succession and is therefore higher in the curtseying stakes.

Then there’s the nonsense of having to curtsey/bow to the monarch on the first occasion on a particular day, and not thereafter for the rest of that day. There was a photo recently showing the Cambridges bowing/curtseying to the Queen, but not the York princesses. Apparently that was because of that “first of the day” rule. I’m impressed that Kate seems to have got her head around all those rules – they would certainly give me a headache, or a fit of the giggles.

Those kinds of anachronisms are nothing to do with modern life. Again, history buffs know more than I do, but I suspect it’s all about the monarchy having shifted sideways after the abdication, which of course happened within the lifetime of the Queen. Tightening up on formal protocol is a good way of asserting a rightful rulership.

Charles will continue with those protocols because he’s never really known life outside the institution. William and Harry have experienced life outside the institution, where they only got to do things by virtue of their expertise rather than from being princes. (Andrew did similarly, but then reverted to being a Prince.)

There was a bit in the Fail today, yet again, about the disconnect between the various RF PR departments. Those don’t really talk to each other very much so there’s quite a history of fracture between what the Queen wants, what Charles wants, what William and Harry want. Nothing will change when Charles becomes king – and he will become king if he survives the Queen, the succession is automatic.

What would be interesting to see is when Charles dies and William becomes king. And that would depend on how much William has been ground down by the institution, and whether he can make the move from reigning to representing.

It really doesn't matter what they are like as individuals, whether they would be a 'good' or 'bad' monarch. Whether we like them or we don't. In a sense it doesn't even matter how much they cost the country, or in contrast how much revenue they may bring into the country. The only thing that matters is that in 2017.... 2017, we have a hereditary head of state. A head of state only there because of the family they were born into. How anyone cannot see that as totally wrong is beyond me. I know the arguments, we could have Trump, we could have Blair. Well yes, we could, but only for 4 or 5 years (and I bet most Mumsnetters whatever they say now were dancing on the rooftops when Blair was elected). We could also have an Obama, or a Mandela. It would be for us to decide and that is how it should be. Hereditary positions have no place in society in this day and age.

Wannabe: Ah but sconesnotscones with that screen name grin you can only be Irish

Actually, no, I'm Australian, but several generations back - In some cases probably 200 years - of mixed Irish and English inheritance (no Welsh or Scottish), so I don't know if that counts, and am, I suppose, a rabid Republican, like virtually everyone I know, so probably I can't really speak in favour of the Monarchy.

Anyway we Australians loooove scones - pronounced to rhyme with "on" not "stone" (except for the Stone of Scone". It's the home of the pumpkin scone touted as the invention of the wife of one of the Queensland premiers. I've even tried making carrot scones and they weren't too bad.

It's interesting but before the Republican referendum here in 1999 it was many of the people whose families had come from Europe in the wake of WWII who were really in favour of retaining the Monarchy because they believed that Australia's very long-term stable government was due in part to the Royal Family, and many, having come from countries with turbulent governments, worked on the premise of "if it works, don't fix it." Or at least that's what vox pops and surveys at the time indicated.

And yes, I've dutifully trotted around to see all the sights of London: saw the changing of the guard at Buck Pal, and the Horseguards. But then again, I saw the changing of the guard in Athens, as well, which is a rather odd performance, and Greece doesn't really have a strong history of modern royalty.

Good fron tourism, good for the promoting of U.K. overseas. Create a lot of cash. Commonwealth could become more important in our mad Brexit etc times. Also. Do you Tony and Cherie as our next president and Mrs? Or equivalent. They would be equally expensive.
I'm all for skipping Charles and Camilla. And getting rid of the extras, Andrew, Edward, Fergie kids etc.
Get Queen Kate on throne! Young queens have always been better than mad old kings.

Charles won't abdicate, it undermines the whole ethos of the monarchy. He has waited for years to be King and he will be. He regards it as his right ordained by God. Ridiculous. Is he really going to play second fiddle to his son?

Coming up to the 20th anniversary of Diana's death - new revelations in the paps this morning regarding the White Uno driver - who still refuses to speak with police over the incident and also whatever happened to Trevor Rhys-Jones, the bodyguard in the car.

Totally smacks of what the monarchy are - power but no backbone.

cheval your post is idiotic, because the whole point of the monarchy is that you dont get to skip those in the line of succession you don't like the look of.

That makes a nonsense of monarchy. You get who you're given. End of.

I do think he will be King, and William before him. There is nothing like the level of republican feeling necessary to start the upheaval of removing the monarchy - and I don't necessarily share the view that most of the goodwill is felt towards the current Queen. I think the boys (and Kate) are extremely popular. The monarchy has been through ups and downs over the centuries and have endured. I think that still has a long, long way to run.

Get Queen Kate on throne!

King William, you mean? Kate has no claim to the throne at all.

Some misinformation on this thread, in fact there are only around 45 monarchies in the world (out of 197 countries). Many of those are tiny countries/islands and 16 of the 45 are headed by Elizabeth ii.

They are a sort of living museum. It's within living memory that the monarchy almost collapsed due to Elizabeth's uncle wanting to marry a divorcee. One of their problems must be that the aristocracy and the rigid social structure that goes along with it does not exist in the same way it used to. Nowadays wives and husbands for royals are more likely to be drawn from the pool of fame than the pool of aristocracy. Many titled aristocrats must be somewhat embarrassed of their titles.

I've been reading up on the French and Italian royals (they still exist!), I think there are currently three pretenders to the French 'throne', the one that doesn't exist. There are two pretenders to the Italian 'throne', also doesn't exist - bad goings on with Royal/Fascist collaboration. I feel it's worth remembering that the totalitarian system is still there waiting if we don't actively take steps to keep it in check.

I don't want them beheaded. But I do want all their property ceased and run for maximum profit to make the NHS work.

I don't want them beheaded. But I do want all their property ceased and run for maximum profit to make the NHS work.

In Spain the monarchy was reinstated after being abolished.
In Portugal we also have one recognised pretender (than god he's not king) and a self-styled pretender. We actually have a Monarchical Party. :)
The thing is that our President has powers not dissimilar to a second chamber. In England, such a President would probably be able to replace both Queen and House of Lords.

Charles has already made it clear that he himself wants a much reduced monarchy, which is why he put the kybosh on Andrew trying to get Beatrice and Eugenie to undertake royal duties and be seen on the balcony more.

I feel fairly certain that's what will happen. He'll lead the way, William will follow and by the time William actually becomes king we will have a more "European" monarchy

With UK visitor numbers, It's almost as if some believe they're all tourists - no doubt aching for a trip to Stonehenge, a tin of fudge with some cute cottages on and a glimpse of a royal

In fact, according to VisitBritain, 24% of visitors come on business and 30% are visiting friends and relatives, which dwarfs the 36% who are actually here purely "on holiday"

I've no doubt some of the 30% will trot along to a royal venue while visiting whoever it is, but the figures hardly suggest the monarchy is much of a reason for folk coming here

We really don't need the monarchy.
They are just people whose ancestors took power and bullied and took what they wanted from ordinary people.
Why people are so subservient to them is baffling! We have been brainwashed into accepting and approving of people who are no better than anyone else. The history isn't noble or romantic...most of it is horrific.
It's amazing how gullible people can be.

To the guillotine!
I'll get my knitting.

No one, but no one, ever came to the UK for Prince Andrew.

The tourist argument is a load of crap. I think we'd get more coming in without them.

No one, but no one, ever came to the UK for Prince Andrew.'

Except Interpol officers? He has some pretty horrible friends.