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.

So 400 servants x conservative estimate of £350 per week
Comes in at £7,280,000

Even at £5 million that’s a whopping amount.
Who pays that...and just think of that alone generating income without all the other palaces, castles into the mix.

What would these royal residences fund

I’m starting to think it’s all a myth about how much the royals generate as a tourist industry

All this talk about Charles slimming down the monarchy to just Charles, Camilla and William and Catherine, in reality it won’t happen! do you seriously think that this lot are going to want to increase their workload and do all the grunt work by themselves of cutting ribbons at the new wing of a meat packing factory in Stoke? This is the type of thing the queen’s cousins etc do, the uncelebrated, unglamorous, unreported stuff which will still need doing once Charles is King, otherwise what is the point of royalty at all if they only do their few chosen charities and glamorous foreign tours?, it will alienate them further from the people than they are now and, Charles and William need the hangers on to keep the royal roadshow going and that is their ultimate aim, to protect themselves.

I can’t see any of our high profile royals chomping at the bit to take on all these extra duties..........

I predict once Charles is King, Beatrice and Eugenie will start royal duties, from my understanding it was Charles who put a stop to them becoming working royals, despite Andrew being desperate for them to take on the role and B&E wanting to as well, the Queen respected Charles’ decision as he has a vision for a slimmed down monarchy, I suspect Charles will be eating humble pie in the not too distant future once the Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra etc become too old or die, he needs the York daughters, particularly if Harry and Meghan up and leave to live in Africa or the USA....

Wallis was probably infertile (no kids with her other marriages and she was 41 anyway by the time she married "David", so pretty borderline) and it's likely that "David" was important after a teenage bout of mumps which left him with some physical issues. The fact that Wallis was apparently able to find some way to make him sexually satisfied may explain her hold over him.

I suspect Charles has made everyone aware this is what he wants to do, hence baby Archie not having a title.

It's driven by constitutional tradition, rather than personal choice

Yes and no.

There are hereditary titles and honorary titles.

Archie doesn't have a title but he's the son of a duke/earl so as a courtesy would be called Archie, Earl of wherever unless that courtesy has been declined. As he isn't called Archie, Earl of wherever then we can only presume that this courtesy title was turned down by his parents.

Archie will have a title one day but, barring a tragic accident, I doubt most of us will be around to see it!

Wallis and David were not, I suspect, the love story we're led to believe. There's lots of stories out there about their marriage and sex life - it seems David just wanted to be looked after and she felt she had no choice but to marry him after he abdicated.

Why on earth hasn't it been revoked?

It was a lifetime peerage, so it ceased on Savile's death and therefore can't be revoked because it no longer exists.

I think the reason the Queen's cousins play such a big part is because she came to the throne so young and there just weren't enough royals to go around in her immediate family to carry out duties. But Charles will have Anne and the Wessexes (assume Andrew will be put out to pasture!), as well as his sons, and by the time William becomes king his own children may be old enough to take on duties. Plus there might be a rethink of things like royal patronages - do we really need random dukes or earls to tour factories etc these days?

William becomes king his own children may be old enough to take on duties.

One problem with the paring down theory is that William has already had three children - if his children go on to reproduce at similar levels we will end up with more close-to-the-throne Royals than before.

(Charles) is over 25 therefore can marry who he wants regardless of the monarch or government giving permission. 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?

Although no lawyer that's more or less how I understand the issue, but as said the point is that we can't know

We could have known, because better brains than mine used public money to address and report on the question, but unfortunately that report has been made unavailable during the subject's lifetime

So I'll ask again: why would that have been done if it favoured Charles's chouces and allowed him to cry "Look!! Look!! I was right!!"?

I can’t see any of our high profile royals chomping at the bit to take on all these extra duties....

I think you're presuming there will still be that work around for them in years to come. Most people I know of Williams generation couldn't care less about the Royals. I doubt hat they will be jumping at the thought of losing a days work, not to mention repainting their factory and standing in a row to how to the Kings niece, or cousin or whoever just so that they can get a small photo in the local paper. I wouldn't be surprised if, after the Queens death, Australia and Canada bid to become republics, reducing the 'work' further.

One problem with the paring down theory is that William has already had three children - if his children go on to reproduce at similar levels we will end up with more close-to-the-throne Royals

I'd go as far as saying only George should have duties when he's an adult. We've seen historically through Margaret and Andrew what being the spare child does when they waste their lives hanging around wanting the glory rather than making their own way like Anne and Edward to some extent.

Good point Betty about who is going to do the gruntwork if there’s a slimmed down monarchy..but I agree with pp do we really need royalty touring meat factories etc
I don’t think we do.

and So it continues
The daily mail has continued to do some digging. It makes uncomfortable reading at how a public servant on a stipend of a quarter of a million and a small navy pension has ended up so rich

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7703985/Prince-Andrews-millionaire-lifestyle-sums-just-dont-add-up.html

Tourist will come to visit castles and palaces regardless of wether there is a queen or king inside them! Look at Versailles or The Hermitage - bursting with visitors. A lot of pageantry still goes on in countries with no monarchy - the army provides it.
Get rid of monarchy - an expensive nonsense of indulgence

@stoneofdestiny I agree, I think the The Royal family only own Balmoral and Sandringham, the state own the rest of the properties. The monarchy are out dated. It’s time to get rid.

@Dowser that is interesting reading, there is far more to what Prince Andrew has been up to than the interview we saw on Saturday. The press are gunning for him, this could be the end of the royal family.

BettyBooJustDoinTheDoo (God you've brought that song back to me) You make a very good point. Although yes, as pointed out, will the 'work' be there?

Regarding Andrew's dodgy income it will be interesting to see how much of it was reported on his tax returns. I think this will get a whole lot worse.

Get rid of monarchy - an expensive nonsense of indulgence

I’m not adverse to getting rid of the monarch, 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

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.

I said “could” I didn’t say would

The thing with royals is not just about the tourism they bring. There is the sales from the clothes and products they use - I was gonna say buy, but everyone in retail will tell you they don't pay full price. These are bought online internationally and make businesses rich. This was highlighted on that channel 5 programme.

If Charles trimlines, he is not getting rid of the workhorses of the family like Anne and Sophie clocking up the hours on bread and butter charities and H&M on their tangible projects. Unfortunately, this will mean Andy will get away with it.

I think Charles would like to instil work ethics on the grandkids to make the monarchy relevant. If he takes over, would not be surprised to find him pushing up a few of the siblings offspring into work - just as he is doing with W.

If W takes over from the get go. He won't have anyone to help him because K 's main role so far is bearing and looking after the heirs.

You think she looks after her own children?