To wonder if Britain will always have a monarchy...

[DrinkSangriaInThePark]

... Or if not, how/when will British people get the opportunity to disband it?

I'm not from England, I'm Irish living in Ireland by the way, and I don't have very strong feelings for or against the British Royal family. But I seem to be hearing a lot of criticism of, and annoyance at, the Royal family recently, and I'm just wondering if there could ever be a referendum to decide whether the idea of a monarchy is outdated and unnecessary?

Again, I'm totally unbiased one way or another, but just wondering if the monarchy has to stay forever, just because it has always been there. With a democratic government, will be there ever be a time when it's deemed an unnecessary cost?

I know a lot of people don't have time for Charles because of the whole Diana/Camilla thing (let's not open that can of worms) but I think left to him you'd see a lot of change in the monarchy but whether he will get the chance or not. He was the one who started slimming things down much to the ire of Andrew.

Charles was the one who implemented Andrew, Eugenie and Beatrice no longer being on the balcony at royal events or receiving any funding from the Sovereign Purse. He wanted it slimmed down - rightly - and I think left to his own devices rather than getting his Mum to do it he'd go further. Be interesting to see what happens when/if he becomes king.

I think Anne did the right thing in keeping her kids as non-HRH.

They're pretty powerful and have a big PR machine. They aren't going anywhere.

If Charles III (assuming he takes that name) adopts "Jerusalem" as his national anthem, I might be persuaded ....

If you have song about England's green and pleasant land as the NA then you are going to piss a lot of people off, like the Scottish, Welsh, and N Irish for a start!

If you have song about England's green and pleasant land as the NA then you are going to piss a lot of people off, like the Scottish, Welsh, and N Irish for a start!

I like the tune

anyway, rate things are going, it'll only be England left. And if Scotland becomes independent with her madge as top banana, I am sure they'd have their own anthem .... as could Wales.

www.royal.uk/financial-reports-2018-19

There's a pdf detailing full financial breakdowns and the sumaries from the various balancers and checker accountants.

I've attached a screenshot from the pdf which gives an idea of the information those pdfs contain.

But obviously, no one wants facts or figures, cause where's the fun in that?

I think people give far too much credit to Charles for the slimming down of the monarchy. If the Queen wanted Andrew’s daughters to be working royals they would be. Especially when you take into account that Andrew is supposedly her favourite.

I think she’ll have been the one to realise that whilst she relied on her cousins that was circumstance of the generation before. The abdication and the early death of her father and the Duke of Kent is the only reason the Kent’s and Gloucester cousins play a part. If she’s had more than one sibling she wouldn’t have needed the extra help. Her having 4 children means that’s not needed going forward as there is enough people in the core group.

There has only been one balcony appearance without Andrew, or the rest of the family, and that was the jubilee so directly linked to the succession. Andrew joined the royal Colonels relatively recently so is now an active part in Trooping the Colour, which means he will be for the foreseeable so either the Queen overruled Charles, or Charles isn’t so desperate to rid himself of his brother as the press make out.

I don't think it matters, history and identity is being eroded for a generic globalist make up for most if not every Western nation. I used to be a Royalist until I realised they have done nothing to stem the regression of this country, regardless of so called royal policy to not get involved etc. I think Harry marrying some American actress will be the beginning of the end of this mob. I'm no fan of a republic either btw or a Communist slum alternative, all of these roads really just lead to the same end for average folk.

On an allied note, and if sensitive about national songs, can I warn against attending American patriotic events where they sing "My Country 'Tis of Thee" ...

I still cringe over a Brit nearby howling in dismay "they've pinched our anthem!!!!"

I think it will go eventually but not in our lifetimes

If it goes someone else will resurrect it, in their name and in their religion.

The only 'working royals' should be those on the direct line of succession:

Queen
Prince Charles & Camilla
Prince William & Catherine.

And then through George, his children and so on.

I don't understand why those like Andrew, Harry, meghan and Edward need to be when they have no chance of a senior role. Keep the titles but they should be out there working real jobs and earning their own money.

I agree in principle Dandelion, but then look what happened when Andrew and Edward - plus their spouses - tried "real jobs"

Sadly, their upbringing seems to have fitted the blood royals for little except being hangers-on, so it's hardly surprising if they'd rather keep that status

But obviously, no one wants facts or figures, cause where's the fun in that?

That's a tad unfair. I've already said it's not the money I object to. In fact it's just a distraction for people to quibble endlessly over whilst spectacularly missing the point about inherited privilege.

I agree in principle Dandelion, but then look what happened when Andrew and Edward - plus their spouses - tried "real jobs"

Far be it from me to defend Andrew but he does have a distinguished services record. But he certainly does not seem fitted for anything else.

The problem with "working royals" is whose job are they taking ?

It's bad enough that you have to have gone to Eton and Oxbridge to be Prime Minister, let alone learning that someone walks into a job because of an accident of birth - because that will always be the perception ...

Who remembers how Prince Edward managed to get into Cambridge with (frankly) pisspoor results ? I remember because I was sharing with someone at the time who had A/A/B and failed to get in, and was less than happy about it.

It's an embarrassing anachronism in 2019, and frankly the very Mumsnetters who predictably cluck about how class no longer exists on threads about what you call your evening meal and pardon vs what very often seem to be ardent monarchists who can't see at all that the very fact of having a royal family through which the Head of State position descends by blood and primogeniture is a concretisation of the class system.

And the people who say the Queen is lovely, but want to delete Charles and skip ahead to a man they sentimentally connect to Princess Diana or who turn up their noses at divorcée American actresses or 'Waity Katy' marrying in are really not getting it. The whole point of a monarchy is you don't get to choose. You're stuck with whatever is next in line, and their marital choices, and whoever they choose to include under the sovereign grant/civil list replacement for funding -- that's the point of a hereditary monarchy.

And why it's an embarrassment in a democracy.

Ireland has it right. Have an elected HoS with purely ceremonial power so that no career politicians are interested in fact there's nothing to say that the HoS has to be a politician at all and pay him or her the top-grade civil servant salary, plus the use of a house, a car etc and some staff. Get someone who actually represents your country, not the some forelock-tugging pre-modern version of it.

To be fair, there are examples of minor royals who’ve carved careers for themselves quietly. Viscount Linley springs to mind.

Also Zara Philips, but she’s in the spotlight due to the nature of her job.

Ireland has it right. Have an elected HoS with purely ceremonial power so that no career politicians are interested

Even if there were the political will (and there isn't) the Monarchs role in the UK is like a spiders web. It's hard to know exactly where it reaches. For a start the entire legal system is predicated on the idea that we are all subjects.

So if we simply remove those powers, where would they reside ? Someone has to be able to balance parliament, for a start.

Personally I feel there's never a bad time to quite Tony Benn (other posters might disagree ) but certainly in relation to the current direction of travel of this thread, his five questions have never been more appropriate:

What Power Have You Got?
Where Did You Get It From?
In whose interests do you exercise it?
To Whom are you Accountable?
How do we get rid of you?

Not great reading when you apply them to the position of "Monarch", I'm afraid.

Suvin you've said exactly what I wanted to say, but far better! It's not so much the money, but that we have a hereditary monarchy, with a huge amount of power that they aren't allowed to use, not because its written down anywhere, but because they choose not to do it'.
We are in the middle of a constitutional crisis and our Head of State is completely useless because she, quite rightly, cant do anything to interfere with an elected body. I don't know how a non executive Presidency works, but as they are elected, id imagine they could act as some kind of mediator. We can unelect useless presidents and choose who we want to be president.
What if William or George turns out to be a power crazed psychopath? They'll still be King. What if Edward Viii hadnt met Wallis Simpson, we'd have had to take a Nazi sympathiser as Head of state because we can't choose.
Apart from the injustice of having a family born into huge wealth that we cant choose being Head of State, it must be the most ridiculous role to actually do. The Queen gets delivered red boxes every day with 'papers' from government apparently, well if she threw them all on the fire every Friday to save money, it would make not a bit of difference, because she cant express her opinion or influence anything in any way. She meets the Prime Minister but what does she have to say? Does she give advice to her? Do we have an unelected monarch giving secret advice to an elected Prime Minister,or does she just listen to a load of old drivel every week and have no input? I don't know what's worse! It makes me mad how little respect for democracy we have in this country. I bet if the Queen just decided to reinstate absolute monarchy and sort out Brexit herself, some people wouldn't bat an eyelid. They would just give away 800 years of hard fought rights because they 'hate politics'.
But to answer the question, I don't think the Monarchy will survive long term. I think the last monarch has been born and I think apathy and irrelevance will see them off, not a huge revolution.

Even if there were the political will (and there isn't) the Monarchs role in the UK is like a spiders web. It's hard to know exactly where it reaches. For a start the entire legal system is predicated on the idea that we are all subjects.

Oh, agreed. If there were the political (or popular) will, it would be reinventable (though, as you say, quite the job), but there certainly isn't, currently.

I bet if the Queen just decided to reinstate absolute monarchy and sort out Brexit herself, some people wouldn't bat an eyelid.

Well would you, if it went the way you wanted ?

Of course we also know that pretty much half the country would probably do a lot more than bat an eyelid ... there are still plenty of spikes around Westminster.

And yy to Tony Benn's questions.

But to answer the question, I don't think the Monarchy will survive long term. I think the last monarch has been born and I think apathy and irrelevance will see them off, not a huge revolution

Fingers crossed, @noodlenosefraggle.

That's true, SerenDippitty; I admit I'd forgotten about Andrew's time in the navy, though in view of his activities since I can't help wondering how much of the "distinguished" was based in reality, and how much down to the usual royal PR

To be fair, at least Anne seems to deservedly escape a lot of the criticism. Granted she lives well off the family's privilege, but at least she avoids preaching at the rest of us - and she does appear to do a fair amount of work

I prefer the Scandinavian royals, since they seem more down to earth.

I think the issue lately is how celebrity driven the current royals have been, especially with the attendance at Harry and Meghan's wedding. I don't think it was a good idea to fill the seats with celebrities rather than family members, and add to that the costs of designer clothing seems to be in bad taste. I hate to say this but someone should have sorted the family drama or Harry should have married another person. I think having a wedding look like the Oscars has affected the way the public sees the monarchy as a whole.