AIBU?
To think it's time the Queen passed the throne to Charles?
CatherineOfAragonsPrayerBook · 18/11/2019 18:48
Given recent events concerning Prince Andrew, and the ensuing scandal, is it time for Charles to take over as King now? The Queen has been dedicated all her life to her civil duties, and continues to perform them well, but as she and the DOE are getting older, it appears her/their ability to control situations with some of the other members of the royal family is waning.
It could be argued that both Harry and Meghan and now Prince Andrew seem to be ignoring advice, unwisely sharing their grievances with the media and striking out on their own with the inevitable backlash (I am referring to interviews, not libel actions). Anecdotally, more and more people are saying it's time to get rid of the royal institution.
If Charles were to become King, it is probable that he would streamline the RF to just William and his heirs and make some needed adjustments, such a move might renew interest in the RF, increase their popularity and ensure their continuance as Charles is more in touch with the mood of the nation.
Also just read this provocative Daily Mail article,
Headline: 'The Queen 'backs' Prince Andrew and 'believes him 100 per cent'
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7698021/Queen-goes-horse-ride-Windsor-Castle-grounds-days-Prince-Andrews-car-crash-interview.html
Do think something has to change.
Am I being unreasonable?
AIBUYou have one vote. All votes are anonymous.
user1498572889 · 18/11/2019 18:51
This reply has been deleted
Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.
KittenLedWeaning · 18/11/2019 18:55
It's time the Queen passed the throne into history, where the whole charade that is Royalty belongs.
However, assuming we are stuck with a Royal Family, it isn't that simple. Constitutionally, she can't retire as Queen - she would have to abdicate. In practice, as time goes on, it's likely she'll pass more and more of her duties to Charles - she's started to do that anyway - but there's next to no chance of her abdicating.
As for Charles - he might pare down the Royal Family, which would be good, but I doubt he'd pare down his own extravagant lifestyle and sack the toothpaste-squeezers - as the lesser of evils, I'd rather have the Queen, I think.
Frenchw1fe · 18/11/2019 18:55
This reply has been deleted
Post references deleted post. Talk Guidelines.
ilyjccs · 18/11/2019 18:57
I don’t see why she should give it up just because her relatives are controversial...after all Andrew and Meghan are Charles’ family too 
Also it’s highly probable that Charles totally backs Andrew as well. Regardless of public opinion, there’s still no proof that Andrew did do it so his family of course are going to back him.
If your son was accused of something awful but he maintained that he was innocent, would you really turn your back completely? The queen is just a mother who loves her son and nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors.
helacells · 18/11/2019 18:59
Absolutely. Her support for Andrew just shows how biased she is and how out of touch with the country's feeling on this. It's time they became more like a European RF. With austerity, Brexit and years of hardship inevitable for Brits it's time to kick them off the list. It's not like any of them are happy anyway
Lulualla · 18/11/2019 19:02
Anne and Edward seem OK. Word hard, keep to themselves but I don't really know anything about them to pass comment on them.
But Charles and Andrew... They seem like the kids you'd say "i think I failed with parenting them".
If Anne could get the crown, i'd be all for it I think. But the rest of them... well.
Lulualla · 18/11/2019 19:06
@helacells
I thought the civil list was out now anyway? Wasn't it changed to them being given a percentage of the profit from the crown estate?
The crown estate (farms, properties, investments etc) is run like a business, but 100% of profits is handed back to the government. I think it's about £230 million a year. The royal family now get a percentage of the profits to live on rather than the civil list. I know they wanted to increase oversight into the running of the crown estate when they decided that the profits would fund the royal family but I'm sure they did all that. Or did the bill not pass?
BiBiBirdie · 18/11/2019 19:07
No I don't think it's time she passed it on to Charles. I think it's time we ditched the bloody lot of them.
The final straw for me was the ridiculous cost of the weddings and the one on its way next year in Windsor. Absolute joke. I live in an area hit by a council tax hike for policing them all. We effectively are still paying for a toffs party we weren't invited to. And don't get me started on the way they treated the homeless due to not wanting to spoil the bloody aesthetic.
Had enough.
Alsohuman · 18/11/2019 19:14
And don't get me started on the way they treated the homeless due to not wanting to spoil the bloody aesthetic
I thought that was Windsor and Maidenhead Council, not the RF.
I can’t see how the Queen abdicating would help in the current situation. Are we blaming Johnson’s mum for his equally abhorrent behaviour?
MarianaMoatedGrange · 18/11/2019 19:15
she didn't have feelings when she was shagging old Charlie boy during his marriage
Charles and Diana's marriage was basically to produce heirs. I'm sure Diana who was engaged at 19 didn't realise at the time though. Not excusing Charles behaviour, but it's clear he's happy or at least happier with Camilla. These kind of 'find a virgin bride' marriages were common in the past for 'gentry' to ensure any child produced was the actual blood heir (didn't always work though!) and the royal family dragged it on into the 1980s.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.