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.

There have been rumours about him being gay (or at least bi) for quite some time. There have also been rumours of a sexual assault

I've heard the George Smith story but not that the assault involved Charles directly - wasn't it his valet?

Stories like the following were fairly widely reported outside Britain. The source here is IndiaToday which is the equivalent of India’s Time Magazine / Times, so a very reputable mag.

www.indiatoday.in/amp/fyi/story/prince-charles-gay-globe-report-queen-elizabeth-boy-toy-11780-2016-06-01

IndiaToday might be but the source they're quoting is not! The Globe is up there with the National Enquirer in terms of credibility.

So according to the poll around 69% think I'm being unreasonable, BUT the general tone of responses actually support my argument, because whilst a very small minority agree that Charles should get the throne sooner rather than later, most are against the proposition of him being King, not because they think he'd be a bad Monarch as such, but because they think the Monarchy should be abolished after the Queen dies.

Playing devils advocate a bit. If the Queens done such a great job, why is there so much clamour for a republic then? For the monarchy to survive, isn't it time for someone else to take over if so many feel negatively about it?

Someone said earlier that the Queen believes her son, and she has normal feelings and is a mother, so it's understandable that his duties aren't being curtailed etc. But the point of being monarch is that the Queen is supposed to be the Queen first and a mother second. Horrible but true. Thinking about it, Queen Victoria et al start to look a bit more sympathetic. They ruled their children and were not sentimental about them. Much easier to be objective that way.

If the Queens done such a great job, why is there so much clamour for a republic then?

I don't think the Queen has done an especially great job. She's done an adequate job. But let's look at the 'job' - being waited on hand and foot, being fawned over wherever you go, travelling everywhere in luxury, only ever seeing the best of what a place has to offer be that a factory or a small town in Wales. And this is so difficult (!) that the Royals need extended breaks throughout the year.

However, even if you think the Queen has done a marvellous job, it doesn't change the fact that the job shouldn't exist. It's like you could acknowledge that someone was a brilliant and hard working designer of nuclear weapons, but be in favour of nuclear disarmament.

I don't quite know how to vote really.

I see what you are saying, but the Queen has always been adamant that she will never abdicate. She won't, either. All that she will do, as she is already, is hand some duties on to Charles and William.

Charles is already in his seventies. He could even be approaching his eighties or older before he ascends the throne. It does make me wonder what plans, if any, Buckingham Palace has in place for the future. I mean, hopefully Charles's health continues to be good, but if it deteriorates due to age related problems then what will happen? A regency situation? The crown perhaps skipping a generation and passing straight to William, who will himself already be middle aged?

I don't know, and I am not saying I favour those options. I just can't help thinking that it will go through a period of much greater instability when the present Queen is gone.

I agree though that it does need slimmed down, and deadwood such that arse, Prince Andrew (Randy Andy, Airmiles Andy) chopped out.

I think it’s time to get rid of the royal family after the Queen, they can live at Balmoral, the taxpayer will only pay for the main close family, the others will all have to find jobs or claim benefits like the rest of us.

YABU for reading and then linking to a Fail page.

You can't trust any type of poll on that rag as it only for a certain type of people (generally twats).

The Queen has said she will never abdicate and I believe her but I do think she is increasingly passing many of her duties to various members of her family, especially Prince Charles. Of all the members of the Royal Family, I would rather have her as the head of it than anyone else. At one stage Charles was unpopular but public opinion seems to have improved. I can’t think of any other role where someone of retirement age would start and I wonder if he really wants to take it all on now. 🤷🏻‍♀️

the others will all have to find jobs or claim benefits like the rest of us

They are all multimillionaires! No chance of them getting benefits - though no doubt they'd try.
They have no real job skills - they have staff we pay for to administer to their every whim - nannies, cleaners, security, drivers, chefs, PA's, housekeepers, landscape gardeners etc etc

However, even if you think the Queen has done a marvellous job, it doesn't change the fact that the job shouldn't exist. It's like you could acknowledge that someone was a brilliant and hard working designer of nuclear weapons, but be in favour of nuclear disarmament

Excellent point. Can't argue with it really except to doubt the merits of an elected head of state it would be a step into the unknown.

Charles is already in his seventies. He could even be approaching his eighties or older before he ascends the throne. It does make me wonder what plans, if any, Buckingham Palace has in place for the future.

Yes to this. I honestly do not think the monarchy would survive another 10 years of it in it's present form. Really don't. My mums a royalist (she comes from Jamaica where she had to sing the anthem etc and loves Elizabeth and Diana) But with this latest, even she is now saying maybe it's time for it to go.

Surely sometimes being dedicated to something means handing it over to someone in a position to care for it better? And why should Charles be forced to wait till he's 80 +?

Someone mentioned that King Juan Carlos I of Spain recently abdicated in favour of his son. A move that was best for the country not himself.

And I don't think the Queen has made prudent decisions in regards to Andrew or at the very least, she has not been advised well. He never was suited to Special Envoy. Anne would have been excellent at it. And nothing changed after rumours of his behaviour leaked in the press years ago.

And just how is it possible, with all the security vetting that takes place that he was dining (unknowingly) with criminals like Epstein, inviting them to royal functions and risking becoming compromised and no one appraises her Majesty and he isn't ordered to cut his association?

I mean who is in charge? It's very sad the way things are going. Yes, I do think the monarchy will end. Not least because of the attitude of entitlement on display and as pp said a code of behaviour should have bern drawn up years ago.

I wonder where we'd be if Edward hadn't abdicated.

Can't argue with it really except to doubt the merits of an elected head of state it would be a step into the unknown.

It would be a risk, yes. But at least we'd have the option of electing someone different if it went badly, assuming we'd use the same system as other countries with presidents.

I wonder where we'd be if Edward hadn't abdicated.

Really interesting question. Edward was a Nazi sympathiser - there are some possible consequences that don't bear thinking about - WW2 could have ended very differently.

Of all the members of the Royal Family, I would rather have her as the head of it than anyone else

Why? He's married his mistress removed scandal from his life, and does an excellent job with the Princes Trust. He has been a leader in terms of talking about conservation and the importance of aesthetically pleasing architecture, something I increasingly appreciate the more frequently I see yet another awful standard grey block of 'affordable' apartments go up with balconies over looking the busy main road.

For Meghan fans he stepped in for her father and walked her down the Aisle which was very decent. She wouldn't have asked him if he wasn't kind. She didn't ask another man in her own friendship circle.

He seems like an decent man whose made some crap decisions in his life but has matured and improved.

I wonder where we'd be if Edward hadn't abdicated.

I believe Noodlenosefraggle has answered this already:

We were one decision away from having a vain, nazi sympathiser on the throne during the War

I'm very glad we didn't have a Nazi sympathizer as Head of State during WWII, but that would have been the inevitable result if he hadn't abdicated, due to the way monarchy works. We'd have had no way to vote him out or opt for another royal to take over.

That is fundamentally why hereditary monarchies are not a good thing. It's not hard to grasp. Even the worst president can be voted out when their term is up, a monarch can't.

I wonder where we'd be if Edward hadn't abdicated

On a lighter note, it would be the Queen's Golden Jubilee in 2022!

I was watching a documentary the other day about Wallis Simpson etc and someone - maybe the narrator - flippantly said there wouldn't have been a war if Edward had remained King. It was a very strange comment it wasn't justified and nothing I've read says such. But it was an interesting thought.

He and Wallis had no children. Was she infertile? Assuming it had been ok to marry her and remain King, there may have no heirs anyway.

But I digress.

have been. Maybe he was impotent?

My guess is that Wallis, who was the dominant partner, simply didn't want children. I can't see that children would have fitted in with her lifestyle.

I think Wallis ended up marrying him because she had no choice after he abdicated, not because she wanted to.

The queen is viewed as never having put a foot wrong because she never says anything. Most Xmas messages are boring waffly stuff that you quickly tune out of, there was only one year that she said anything out of the ordinary, she moaned a bit and there was an outcry against her. This is where it's all going wrong at the moment the younger members don't understand that it's a non-speaking role and they want to be heard (as if any of the over privileged muppets have anything to say worth listening to).
If the RF shut up they could all continue to move palace to palace through the year with their vast numbers of servants, private trains etc and live a life of unwarranted luxury but still bask in a reputation for thrift because the third assistant housekeeper bought a tupperware box for the weatabix. Fortunately they all think they're so amazing they can't keep quiet so it won't be long to the republic.

with an elected Head of State they can be deselected, their children wont get the job just because their parent died or retired. We can decide how their effectiveness is monitored, what expenditure is allowed, where their residence will be and how it's staffed and what terms/timescale we put on their tenure in office.
In short it's our democratic choice. Their relatives - brothers, sisters, cousins, nieces and nephews don't get to live at taxpayers expense.
We can decide what conditions allow them to be dismissed from office e.g. bringing the position into disrepute, association with known offenders etc etc.

No, the Queen does well for someone her age and I think she should carry on as long as she can.

their children wont get the job just because their parent died or retired.

Interestingly, that's why our last attempt at ditching the monarchy failed. When Oliver Cromwell died, for some reason the Protectorate passed to his son, Richard, who was rubbish at the job.