Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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

395 replies

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.

OP posts:
DrinkFeckArseGirls · 21/11/2019 20:37

If Charles died before the queen surely Anne would be the queen. Same with “skipping” a generation - if Charles opted out then again - Queen Anne.

DrinkFeckArseGirls · 21/11/2019 20:40

Or would it be King Andrew, if I recall well there was going to be a change in law that a female child could become the monarch but then George was born so there was no need?

BennyTheBall · 21/11/2019 20:40

I agree. I loathe the sycophancy.

And Kate is a very poor role model imo. The very best education money could buy and she seemingly aspired to do fuck all with it - oh yes, the brief pretend pt job at Jigsaw for appearance's sake.

Meghan had a career and made her own money and seems to have a personality.

WineOrGinOrBoth · 21/11/2019 20:53

Kate worked for her family firm as did I. I can tell you I worked just as hard as a regular employee.

Succession

Charles
William
George
Charlotte
Louis
Harry
Archie
Andrew
Beatrice
Eugenie
Edward
James
Louise
Anne
Peter
Peters offspring
Zara
Zara’s offspring

I think I got that right - others better qualified than me may come along.

noodlenosefraggle · 21/11/2019 20:53

If Charles died before the queen surely Anne would be the queen. Same with “skipping” a generation - if Charles opted out then again - Queen Anne.
No, because the heir has an heir. The Crown is passed down from first born to first born, barring death without an heir or abdication. Anne is waay down the line after all her brother's and all her brother's children and grandchildren. The law was still changed to allow girls to be not overlooked if they had younger brothers but I think that applies to Charlotte and below.

DrinkFeckArseGirls · 21/11/2019 20:56

Ah. OK noodle, I was just pondering.

noodlenosefraggle · 21/11/2019 21:49

I'm disappointed in myself that I know so much about the Royal Family. I'm blaming my DS and his bloody kings and queens obsession Grin

lyralalala · 21/11/2019 23:17

Or would it be King Andrew, if I recall well there was going to be a change in law that a female child could become the monarch but then George was born so there was no need?

They have changed it now. Charlotte and Louis are the first two it impacted (it's not retrospective so Anne and Louise are still behind their male siblings). Louis didn't push Charlotte down a place in the line of succession.

KittenLedWeaning · 21/11/2019 23:21

I think that's spot-on WineOrGinOrBoth.

Alrighteo · 22/11/2019 08:52

The thing that the UK lacks is the ability for all individuals to personally vote for a Head of State. So, President Blair/Johnson et al, wouldn't ever happen in such a scenario. Therefore it's just a nonsense bringing it up. Ireland is accustomed to having that privilege. We know that whoever we vote for will represent us on the world stage, so people take it seriously and it is quite a privilege. The UK has the monarchy which is by birth and elected MP's, who then decide on the Prime Minister. So they never have the opportunity to vote for anyone other than local councillors or MPs.

Alrighteo · 22/11/2019 08:57

And Kate is a very poor role model imo. The very best education money could buy and she seemingly aspired to do fuck all with it - oh yes, the brief pretend pt job at Jigsaw for appearance's sake.
She became a duchess and future Queen of England.... Not bad for a day's work I'd say!

ReceptacleForTheRespectable · 22/11/2019 10:13

Not bad for a day's work I'd say!

'work'? Hmm

ReceptacleForTheRespectable · 22/11/2019 10:16

Alrighteo - just because the UK hasn't previously voted for its Head of State doesn't mean we're incapable of doing so. Traditions dont last forever and if the monarchy were abolished (yay!), then people would be perfectly capable of deciding who to vote for as their national representative.

LaurieMarlow · 22/11/2019 10:29

It’s just so infantilising, this idea that the UK isn’t capable of voting for a decent head of state and should just accept what they’re given like a bunch of children.

I’m always gobsmacked that people are accepting of that. Who in their right mind wants to be a ‘subject’?

cakeisalwaystheanswer · 22/11/2019 10:42

So apparently Andrew's biggest "charitable" concern, Pitch at the Palace is an earner for him. He introduces new tech start ups to investors and then gets 2% of any profits, see todays article in the Telegraph about why he is loathe to give up the £££s. I have very low expectations of this godforsaken bunch of parasites but surely this is a new low even for them.

www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/11/21/prince-andrew-refuses-give-pitchpalace-emerges-can-take-cut/

Alrighteo · 22/11/2019 10:54

I never said that the UK wouldn't be capable of voting for a Head of State - just that they've never had the opportunity, due to the way the UK operates.
I also don't agree with the way the President is elected in the US. Also, he has a lot more power in the US than the President of Ireland, who is more or less similar to the Queen. The Taoiseach (Prime Minister) in Ireland who rules, not the President as it is in the US.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 22/11/2019 10:54

But is it really a surprise that Andrew uses his "charity" to make money? Why would someone so morally bankrupt be involved at all if it wasn't for the cash? And as I've asked before, does anyone seriously imagine he does much real work for it, as opposed to merely turning up for photo shot and collecting his "earnings"?

It now hardly matters what he wants anyway; if sufficient sponsors turn their backs - and some already have - the charity will be going nowhere fast

Alrighteo · 22/11/2019 10:58

Would you trust someone to go to the voting centre and vote on your behalf? That's essentially what UK citizens are left doing - trusting their elected MP to vote for who they'd like as PM. There's no choice in the monarchy. In Ireland of course it's the same in terms of election of the Taoiseach, but we get direct input into our President.

Alrighteo · 22/11/2019 11:00

Am I correct in thinking that the Queen is the Head of the British Army (on paper if not functionally?).

ReceptacleForTheRespectable · 22/11/2019 11:27

Yes, and head of the Church of England.

cakeisalwaystheanswer · 22/11/2019 11:35

Puzzled - yes it is a surprise to me mug that I am.

If I set myself up as an introductory service between entrepreneurs and investors and was charging a %age of future profits for the intro I would be subject to all kinds of FCA registration, rules, compliance etc as I would in effect have become an investment bank, albeit a very small one. Andrew has hidden behind the facade of a charity and avoided these. This should not be possible and I am going to write to the FCA asking them to investigate.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 22/11/2019 11:48

Andrew has hidden behind the facade of a charity and avoided (the regulations). This should not be possible and I am going to write to the FCA asking them to investigate

Good luck with that, cake; love the user name BTW Wink The FCA also have a record of, shall we say, missing things - including, ironically enough, Maxwell's exploits - so I'd be fascinated to know what they do about it

I'm the first to admit I'm too old and too cynical, but every time folk try to adopt a more optimistic attitude, more filth crawls into view which suggests the attempt's naive at best

littlemeitslyn · 22/11/2019 11:51

No

ReceptacleForTheRespectable · 22/11/2019 11:56

It really does throw into question the whole "but they do so much for charity" thing that gets wheeled out when the royals are criticised.

At best, they do it primarily because they have acres of free time and need to keep us plebs onside, but now we know at least one of them (Andrew) is profiting financially from it. Who knows, maybe other royals do too?

Puzzledandpissedoff · 22/11/2019 12:12

now we know at least one of them (Andrew) is profiting financially from (charity). Who knows, maybe other royals do too?

I find Charles's associations reward research, not least those with Cem Uzan, Yiannis Latsis and Manuel Colonques ...