To think it's time the Queen passed the throne to Charles?

[CatherineOfAragonsPrayerBook]

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.

No, but I think that's the narrative she gives for being so damn lazy.

@noodlenosefraggle Most people I know of Williams generation couldn't care less about the Royals

Hmm. Does anyone remember the days following the Grenfell corporate murder tragedy?

I followed it closely. For a few days during which many ordinary working class people were extremely angry, there was a fleeting period of unfiltered discourse between people on the ground and those living in their privileged bubbles above them.

Many people who pride themselves for being 'in touch', but actually practice champagne socialism, rushed to get coverage only to be shocked when they were angrily told to do one.

I watched a lot of non-mainstream 'one guy with a youtube channel' style reporting. Universally they reported being asked first whether they were from the mainstream media before anyone would talk to them.

Good old liberal Jon Snow, who I imagine previously believed himself in touch with these things, was shouted at and questioned as to why he bothered to show any interest now. Other reporters were openly derided. Teresa May barely made it back to her car without being lynched. Andrea Leedsom attempted to make a covert visit but was confronted and 'told about herself' to put it in colloquial terms and made aware that few respected her peers either.

But Prince William turned up with the Queen in tow, the very epitome of privilege, and they were received well! Someone even curtsied. Clearly the Queen and perhaps William himself, seem to be seen as belonging to everyone and being above the dirt of politicians and a corporate serving media.

So to speculate, it's possible their relevance to many is being underestimated, as is their influencee, and while I'm definitely not a fan, maybe H&M are seen this way by many too.

This is why I think the Queen standing by Andrew is a bad move. It tarnishes them all by association, bringing into question her judgement and showing no regard for the little people that PA showed no concern in his interview for, showing them to actually be out of touch. I read that some of Epsteins victims felt 'sad' at the Royal's response. They felt Royalty was better. I can imagine that most people (especially in America) think Royalty is special. Above the normal rich sleezes they think of. Now they much have a sense that every institution is corrupt.

So that is why I argue that someone who is more in touch should take over the reins so the Monarchys' reputation can be saved. It is not about the Monarchy continuing per se, it's about how they continue. PA is an entitled relic of the past. Even Anne is more in touch, she can argue she's been a single parent with ordinary children who doesn't blow her own trumpet or take the piss and works hard. If we had a choice, I would like her to be next after the Queen. Edward&Sophie are probably also relics, but keep quiet so no one notices. Charles is more in touch. Let him have his time now.

Charles is a divisive figure in the way the Queen is not. His accession will raise questions about the role and future of the monarchy. More constitutional uncertainty is absolutely not what the country needs right now. I hope the Queen will survive a few more years - for her own sake obviously but also because by then hopefully we can have got over the current crisis when Charles accedes.

the question is can he married a divorcee in a civil marriage and be the head of the Church if England. If he’s not eligible for that then can he be King?

I can't see a reason why that should be any different from a king who is divorced himself (with a wife still living) remarrying, and there are several precedents for that in history which haven't been challenged. Even if, by a technicality, the marriage was invalid for kingship purposes, Charles would just be a single king with a mistress (again, ample precedent).

but whatever we replace it with could well cost more. Look around at the Cost of a president and followers and in some countries it’s more expensive

It absolutely doesn't have to be. Again, look at the Irish model

We decide on our own model!

If Charles tampax doesn’t slim the royal model down he will find the royal circus grinding to a halt even sooner.
Amazing how non royals once absorbed into the ‘firm’ (what a joke calling themselves that) become idlers - Catherine does nothing except parade in frocks!

I think Catherine does look after her own children most of the time, or what else does she do? She did look noticably tired after Louis birth, like a Mother doing night feeds.

She has also had her moment of talking about the difficulties of motherhood....

the question is can he married a divorcee in a civil marriage and be the head of the Church if England. If he’s not eligible for that then can he be King?

The civil marriage provided the legality and the church blessing provided religious legitimacy. This is quite insane.

I agree with OP’s point about reputation, it’s a great shame the Queen sprang to Andrew’s defence so readily but I guess that’s what doting mothers do. Look at Violet Kray.

The Queen is 93 she must be tired. She must have started passing on the main royal duties to the younger generation. The problem is I don’t see anyone up to the job. I think Queens are better monarchs than Kings, so maybe Princess Anne would be the best choice.

I think Queens are better monarchs than Kings, so maybe Princess Anne would be the best choice.

As has been said before, the whole problem with the system is that we don't get a choice.

People who want the throne to pass straight to William or Anne (or any Royal but Charles) would be better off supporting the abolition of the monarchy and urging their preferred ex-Royal to stand as president.

@kittenledweaning agreed that’s why I think the monarchy has had it’s day.

What makes you think Charles would be any better? He's also sat there and done sweet FA about Andrew. And most people are more concerned by what he may have done that any interview gaffes. It's a huge red herring.

but whatever we replace it with could well cost more. Look around at the Cost of a president and followers and in some countries it’s more expensive

Have you got figures to back that up? Because it seems highly unlikely to me.

In Ireland, for example, the taxpayer is only responsible for the - relatively modest - expenses of the president and his or direct family. With the British royal family, there are I believe 14 'working' members of the family who are subsidised by the taxpayer, including round-the-clock security. The latter alone runs into tens if not hundreds of millions every year.

I highly doubt the Irish taxpayer is paying for the lifestyle of President Higgens' grandchildren and their spouses.

Supposedly the real enforcer in the royal family is Philip, not HMTQ. He's the one taking care of 'family business', which all sounds - and maybe is - a bit Michael Corleone. However, he's now nearly 100 and supposedly in poor health. The queen is not much younger. So there's a bit of a power vacuum at the top of the House of Windsor. Charles has long been rumoured to be vacilating and somewhat weak. William does appear to have that ruthless streak which is neccessary to keep The Firm in line, but he's still only the heir to the heir and has no real power.

It's a daft situation really. A huge, politically and culturally important multi-billion £ firm being run by two nongenarians. Which all goes to show what a ridiculous system hereditary monarchy is.

It appears only the Queen receives money from the Sovereign Grant.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family

Subsequently, the living costs of the members of the royal family who carry out official duties, including the Princess Royal, the Duke of York, and the Earl and Countess of Wessex, have mainly been met through the Queen's income from the Duchy of Lancaster.[32]

It's a daft situation really. A huge, politically and culturally important multi-billion £ firm being run by two nongenarians.

So give it to Charles so he can flex his muscles and then William may get some secondart delagative responsibility with the prospect of full power sooner.

And clear up this mess.

It's a daft situation really. A huge, politically and culturally important multi-billion £ firm being run by two nongenarians.

So give it to Charles so he can flex his muscles and then William may get some secondart delagative responsibility with the prospect of full power sooner.

And clear up this mess.

Charles has long been rumoured to be vacilating and somewhat weak

I don't get that impression. He's pretty forthright with his views. All those letters to politicians. I suspect he's not seen as controllable as the Queen who has never put a foot wrong, or if recent reports concerning PA financial wheeling is to be believed, objected to entertaining some very dodgy people at lunch without much questioning when asked.

So give it to Charles so he can flex his muscles and then William may get some secondart delagative responsibility with the prospect of full power sooner.

Personally, I'd rather get rid of the whole silly system. But if we must have a monarchy, then yes, I'd agree this should be the next step. There is something more than a little sad about a 71 year old granddad still hanging around waiting to do the job he was born to do.

He's pretty forthright with his views.

It's not the role of members of the royal family to give their 'views'. They're supposed to be unifying figures. Anyway, when I said that Charles is rumoured to be weak I mean in the internal affairs of The Firm, not with his unsolicited views on other matters.

the Queen who has never put a foot wrong,

I'm not sure that's true. She - and her husband - forced Charles to get married to a naive 19 year old he didn't love. She completely misread the public mood at the time of Diana's death. And then there's all that shady business with her darling son Andrew.

Some of the other Royal families have had indications precisely because life expectancy is so much longer. Especially amongst the wealthy. HM could abdicate due to old age or put Charles in charge as regent. None of the others have any right to do it. Its Charles then William, then George, like it or not.

Some of the other Royal families have had indications precisely because life expectancy is so much longer

Assuming that by 'indications' you mean 'abdications' I agree. I don't think monarchy was designed for an era where the monarch would have 8 greatgrandchildren and have an heir who's just celebrated his 71st birthday. It's kind of absurd.

Speaking of Charles 71st birthday, his parents must have worked fast! He was born within a year of their wedding - and it's their anniversary today!

twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/status/1197091638557990912?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Some of the other Royal families have had indications precisely because life expectancy is so much longer. Especially amongst the wealthy. HM could abdicate due to old age or put Charles in charge as regent.

Absolutely. I see many saying 'The Queen promised to devote all her life to our service' But may I point out that abdicating in favour of someone with more energy is 'serving?' and it seems other Monarchs are able to see this.

When the Queen refuses to pass along the throne despite evidence that her authority is waning, whom is really benefiting? She has to deal with this drama now at 93. And I doubt she has the strength to be as hard as she needs to be. Many people become more pliable and sentimental at that age.

Is Charles still in New Zealand? I think he should cut the tour and return asap. The Queen looked downcast and frail in the pictures in DM yesterday. All the major foreign tours seem to have been blemished with scandal this year.

They got it quickly for sure! No time together solely as a married couple first!

But 72 years is amazing! Longest married couple I knew (they're both dead now) were married 56 years.

The Crown Estate is constituted as a statutory corporation under the Crown Estate Act 1961. It is a body established in perpetuity under the Act as a trust estate. Independent of government and the monarch, The Crown Estate's public function is to: invest in and manage certain property assets belonging to the monarch; and remit its revenue surplus each year to the Exchequer.
It was in 1760 that the Sovereign first surrendered the surplus revenue (but not the ownership) of what is now The Crown Estate in England and Wales to Parliament, in exchange for income from the Government under the Civil List. Crown lands in Scotland were included in this arrangement from 1832. The arrangement has been renewed ever since by subsequent monarchs at the start of every reign. The assets of The Crown Estate are therefore not the property of the Government, nor are they the Sovereign's private estate. They are part of the hereditary possessions of the Sovereign "in right of the Crown".

My aunt and uncle were married 63 years
A lovely happy marriage too.