Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think Prince Charles will be our last Monarch

341 replies

Jemima232 · 29/08/2019 09:49

Given that it could be another thirty years before Prince Charles dies, I was wondering if he will be our last Monarch.

I think that a lot will have changed by the time Prince William is due to accede the throne and that the Monarchy will have been abolished by then.

OP posts:
Original poster
Jemima232 · 30/08/2019 10:53

@HMArsey

I don't think abdication is bad per se.

But I think that the RF have very bad memories (well, the Queen has very bad memories) of the crisis in 1936 when her Uncle David (Edward VIII) abdicated. She felt that the result of it was to place her father on the throne when he had had no real training for it - and that his health declined significantly as a result and he died prematurely due to extreme stress.

Her mother allegedly never forgave David for abdicating.

Prince Charles was very close to the Queen Mother and would have heard all this ad nauseam.

He would not want to abdicate in any case as he has waited to inherit the Throne all his life. It is his raison d'etre.

Abdication historically only happens when there is an irreconcilable reason for a monarch to remain on the throne. It would not be considered simply in order to let a younger and more popular person accede.

If the Queen becomes too frail and unwell to remain on the throne, PC will become the Prince Regent.

This is quite a likely thing to happen. The Queen is 93. The biggest risk factor for dementia is advanced age.

OP posts:
lyralalala · 30/08/2019 11:00

Can someone oblige me with quick explanation of why abdication would be so bad?

Because their whole position is that they were born as God’s choice with the obligation/position to serve in their role.

If you start abdicating and playing around with the order because it suits you then the public could start wanting a say in the order.

If you remove the divine right for Charles yo reign in favour of William then how long before the public want it removed from George for Charlotte or Louis?

Of from George to Archie or Savannah or Louise. Then their position is weakened. Remove the basic tenet of it and you jeopardise the whole monarchy.

Plus the memories of 1936 shaped the Queen and will therefore be strongly shaped in her children, and probably grandchildren.

BertrandRussell · 30/08/2019 11:02

Cos Divine Right, innit.

HMArsey · 30/08/2019 11:14

Thanks for that. I'd always thought they could abdicate if they wanted to, I wasn't sure whether there was some constitutional disaster that would be triggered if they did.

LaMarschallin · 30/08/2019 11:22

The biggest risk factor for dementia is advanced age.

Risk factors for many illnesses increase with age.

The evidence would suggest that if she hasn't got dementia by now, it's more likely that something else will carry her off before a dementing illness got serious enough to cause trouble.

It's not obligatory for older people to get dementia.

lyralalala · 30/08/2019 11:29

Thanks for that. I'd always thought they could abdicate if they wanted to, I wasn't sure whether there was some constitutional disaster that would be triggered if they did.

Technically they can, but there would be massive repercussions to it.

In 1936 they were saved by the fact that the new King and Queen with their two girls were popular, but it could have finished them.

If they start playing with it now they’d struggle to hold their position I think as they’d have removed their number one point.

Although I do think the Netherlands/Luxembourg was of doing it is much better - give the new King/Queen the back up of having the only person with job experience there to give advice, reduce the need for regency due to infirmity or dementia and not give someone the biggest promotion of their life while they are organising their parents funeral seems infinitely sensible (if you have to have a monarchy at all). Won’t ever be the way here though.

Original poster
Jemima232 · 30/08/2019 11:37

I know it's not obligatory for older people to get dementia but one in five people over the age of 85 have a diagnosis of dementia.

OP posts:
Ihatesundays · 30/08/2019 12:32

Abdicating means being cut off. I know they are wealthy in their own right. However they are provided with homes, security, transport etc. Different to paying it all yourself. No official status.

King Edward ended up selling himself basically in America for cash, basically working, then don’t want to be doing that.

Original poster
Jemima232 · 30/08/2019 12:38

They also have to face the fact the Duke of Windsor was a Nazi sympathiser.

None of them want to rake that up again.

OP posts:
LaMarschallin · 30/08/2019 12:55

I know it's not obligatory for older people to get dementia but one in five people over the age of 85 have a diagnosis of dementia.

Well, she doesn't seem to have it yet.
Breast cancer with secondaries, for example, could make her a lot more frail a lot more quickly.

On MN there seems to be a bit of an expectation that anything odd happening in anyone over 50 must be dementia.

I'm sorry. Don't wish to derail the thread, but, having worked with the older mentally ill, the casual ageism here seems appalling.

I'm not suggesting you were being ageist, btw, just that the use of a different illness as an example would have been refreshing.

LaMarschallin · 30/08/2019 13:17

Just to clarify, by "here" I mean MN.
Not this thread in particular.

crosstalk · 30/08/2019 13:24

I think the monarchy will vanish.

However a President will not make life fairer. Look at the situations round the world from Brazil to the US to India and Russia, the RSA and Zimbabwe. Look at the disparity of riches and how the children of those people benefit.

And look at the costs - nearly 2billion dollars on the last Clinton v Trump presidential race, with yet more promises made on both sides to the people funding them, like fracking and abortion control. Of course some presidents don't even bother with money, they just use the army .

I'm aware from councils to MPs a miniature version of these go on though in the UK but it tends to be milder, and journalists don't get shot for their exposes. But adding a presidential election on the top wouldn't be great IMHO.

SymphonyofShadows · 30/08/2019 13:26

I’m inclined to believe the rumours too. Some of the media have been quite overt in their stories, and loads with long memories will recall that all the rumours about C&D turned out to be just skimming the surface.

I wish people would cut out the ‘Wills’ bollocks. Why use the infant nickname of a man you don’t know?

SymphonyofShadows · 30/08/2019 13:27

Those with long memories, not loads!

lyralalala · 30/08/2019 13:41

Abdicating means being cut off. I know they are wealthy in their own right. However they are provided with homes, security, transport etc. Different to paying it all yourself. No official status.

Also in this social media age it’s not like they’d give up the titles, move into a swanky house and live anonymously for the rest of their lives.

They’d be celebrities regardless if they wanted it. So the ones that would like that idea would live with less restrictions in terms of watching what they say and what they can be involved it.

For any that might want a quiet life it would be pointless - they’d lose all the trappings, but actually might also lose some of the protections they get from the British media in terms of photos of their kids etc.

Pannalash · 30/08/2019 13:58

Crikey XXcstatic Prince Harry never gives the appearance that he is ‘openly resentful’ of his ‘celebrity’ quite the opposite in fact he appears to enjoy the attention (when it suits him).

BertrandRussell · 30/08/2019 14:06

If I had to pick someone to open my bazaar and look as if they were enjoying it, i’d choose Harry over William any day......

noodlenosefraggle · 30/08/2019 15:55

My grandmother died last year at the age of 105. She only started losing her memory in the last 2 years

Original poster
Jemima232 · 30/08/2019 16:33

Maybe it's because I was a Dementia Specialist Nurse for fifteen years that it springs to mind when discussing Her Maj.

As you were.

OP posts:
SoupDragon · 30/08/2019 16:56

Even though 80% of people over the age of 85 have a diagnosis of dementia?

SoupDragon · 30/08/2019 16:56

Do NOT have a diagnosis...

Ffs

Original poster
Jemima232 · 30/08/2019 16:58

I guess it wasn't a very good possible disease or illness to choose.

Sorry.

OP posts:
JemimaTab · 30/08/2019 17:00

I think Harry is vastly preferable to William. At least, if he were to give it all up tomorrow, you would be able to name some of Harry’s pet causes and the things he has done, such as Invictus, Sentabale etc. and he is clearly very popular with the crowds and puts on a good show when he’s out and about. I also suspect that he is more popular overseas (and probably better known) than other members of the RF. I think he is (with Meghan) trying to modernise the RF which IMO it needs.
I have no clue what drives William and even less clue about Kate (we barely even hear her speak so it’s impossible to form an impression of what she’s about).

SoupDragon · 30/08/2019 17:01

She's probably more likely to be run over by the Duke of Edinburgh.

Topseyt · 30/08/2019 17:05

I like the monarchy, but I do think that it will go through a period of much more instability after the present Queen dies.

Prince Charles is already in his seventies isn't he? His mother is in her nineties and will not abdicate. She is only very gradually handing over a few duties to the younger royals (mainly Charles, and sometimes William). Her own mother lived to be over 100. If she lives to a similar age then Charles could even be in his eighties before he accedes to the throne.

Whatever happens, Charles's reign will be nothing like the length of his mother's. William can only follow after that. He too will be getting on in years by the time he becomes King.

My point is that I think it will go through a time of change even greater that anything we have seen during the present Queen's reign. It is possible that it doesn't survive that, though I would personally be sad if that were to happen. It will have to tread carefully. The future is not guaranteed.