To think the monarchy will end with the death of Queen Elizabeth 2

[Gingertea2020]

As an Aussie am curious to know if British monarchy can really prevail beyond life of Queen.

Recently there has been the biography of Megxit and details, intricate, of the fall out between the two Princes and their wives.

Added to this there is the Prince Andrew saga.

With all that is happening in world, will it really continue ?

I can’t imagine a Prince Charles.

I genuinely wonder why the British bother with it all.

Let us suppose for a moment that Andrew was a born diplomat who would make the perfect head of state instead of merely being the first royal unable to sweat. Would it be to the Royal Family's advantage to let the public know what they were missing out on? They do their best to sway public opinion in the direction they want.

As already observed, the effort goes into the eldest heir, and there is nothing motivating is growing up knowing that whatever you do or achieve, your older brother/sister will be monarch, not you. That's one way to warp a character.

But if a younger child rose above that and outshone the eldest, it would be unhelpful to the institution to have it be well-known. Publicly popular younger siblings are what leads to wars of succession!

Think of all the queens jewellery she has on loan from the British public. She was asked by government to return the jewellery but refused. Millions of ££££££'s apparently. Imagine how much that would help poverty that the rich royals pretend to ralley around.
Absolutely dianna was bumped off. Marrying a Muslim wouldn't have been great for the royals. What was the recent headlines..... queen acted on necessity for the brand than family.... Harry's freedom clause probably had a silence order attached. Clearly he wasnt allowed to name his real dad

Interestingly there was a situation with Australia’s former prime Minister Gough Whitlam. There was a dishonest situation that raised eyebrows and he was removed as Prime Minister by the Governor General (Queen Elizabeth’s Oz rep). It has now emerged Queen Elizabeth wasn’t informed of the Australian Governor General’s removal of then PM, Gough Whitlam. This has recently been revealed by historic letters that were released to the public.

The Queen refused to later intervene because she said the powers to remove a Prime Minister lay with the Governor General.

All very complicated and concerning because we rarely know who the Governor General is.

The parties here can choose a new prime minister, it’s the party we elect, not the person like in the US. We’ve had so many changes of Prime Minister within the same party.

I think a separation of powers is a good thing for a democracy. I can see why you all find comfort in history, tradition. It’s not just the role or the royal family but that you know their values. I mean sure there’s cheating and scandals but they’re never going to allow a rogue dictator too much freedom.

@Ispywithmycynicaleye I’m not one for conspiracy theories but agree with you. I don’t buy the kindergarten narrative or the superficial coronial enquire that Diana was killed by the press.

No other celebrity In history has even been in a car accident that was caused by the press. It’s extremely unlucky and questionable timing.

I think her recent success with the landmines caused controversy with politicians and I imagine arms dealers. She was so powerful. This is before social media. She could make any issue front page news and she did with land mines and made major progress.

I think there were powerful people who wanted her killed. I don’t think the royal family would have cared she was dating a Muslim. She was no longer a member do their family. I think it was more that she was no longer protected by people on the inside of power that had ties to royal family.

We think power lies with heads of state and politicians but it doesn’t. There’s a whole other layer of people with serious money and power behind the scenes.

@Gingertea2020 Whitlam was not dishonest. Can't let that stand.

@KeepingPlain

The alternative would be a currency with Boris on it.

Oh dear god no.

President Boris Johnson.

Oh shit!!

We can't afford to not have a monarchy.
The money they bring into our country, far outweighs that of much else. They're a selling point nowadays.
Especially with all the drama surrounding them, people are more interested than they have been, so when life is back up and running I believe believe london will see a big boom in tourism.

@StartupRepair have never been able to find a good summary of what he did to deserve being removed. It’s all very vague online. I’ve never fully understood.

@Gingertea2020

Interestingly there was a situation with Australia’s former prime Minister Gough Whitlam. There was a dishonest situation that raised eyebrows and he was removed as Prime Minister by the Governor General (Queen Elizabeth’s Oz rep). It has now emerged Queen Elizabeth wasn’t informed of the Australian Governor General’s removal of then PM, Gough Whitlam. This has recently been revealed by historic letters that were released to the public.

The Queen refused to later intervene because she said the powers to remove a Prime Minister lay with the Governor General.

All very complicated and concerning because we rarely know who the Governor General is.

The parties here can choose a new prime minister, it’s the party we elect, not the person like in the US. We’ve had so many changes of Prime Minister within the same party.

I think a separation of powers is a good thing for a democracy. I can see why you all find comfort in history, tradition. It’s not just the role or the royal family but that you know their values. I mean sure there’s cheating and scandals but they’re never going to allow a rogue dictator too much freedom.

You can read about it on Wikipedia.

It wasn't a matter of having done something "bad" it was a matter of the government being unable to function because of a conflict between the two houses.

It's not totally dissimilar to the kind of problem where there is a non-confidence vote - the governing party may be democratically elected, but they have to be able to actually govern - to have the confidence of the MPs to pass legislation and do the work of Parliament. In this case the work of Parliament could not go on because of the conflict between the two houses.

This is exactly the sort of thing the GG exists for. In case of a non-confidence vote within the Commons the decision to trigger an election is pretty clear cut because there is a fair bit of precedent, and the way is clear for the GG to dissolve Parliament. In this instance, there was not the same precedent, so it was necessary for the advisors of the GG - generally constitutional lawyers - to do research and make recommendations, though the buck stops, in the end, with the GG.

This is why the position of GG is explicitly non-political - a decision like this is not meant to be a political one, but one based on the foundations of the system and governance. And there must be no appearance that it might be about politics, either.

theconversation.com/palace-letters-reveal-the-palaces-fingerprints-on-the-dismissal-of-the-whitlam-government-142476

Whitlam didn't have control of the Senate and they blocked supply. He felt that the GG was working against him and he was trying to get the Queen to sack the GG. It was a race between them to each get the Queen to sack the other.
Whitlam made a lot of mistakes but he was a visionary and a reformer and many of the things we take for granted in Australia were his idea. On election he pulled Australia straight out of the Vietnam War. My brother in law had been conscripted to go so we always feel Whitlam saved his life.

A big boom in tourism in London will have nothing to do with the royals! People visiting London don’t do so because they think they’ll catch a glimpse of Harry in the local Starbucks .

The idea that tourism would suffer if we got rid of our RF is patently nonsense but one that is continually pushed by RF supporters because there is precious little else they can say that’s positive about them .

Recently there has been the biography of Megxit and details, intricate, of the fall out between the two Princes and their wives.

No way!! I can't believe that. How does one live in England yet not know about this??

@GoingtotheWinchester

A big boom in tourism in London will have nothing to do with the royals! People visiting London don’t do so because they think they’ll catch a glimpse of Harry in the local Starbucks .

The idea that tourism would suffer if we got rid of our RF is patently nonsense but one that is continually pushed by RF supporters because there is precious little else they can say that’s positive about them .

Well considering 552,000 Visitors PAID to get in to Buckingham Palace last year I’d say people were still interested. 1.65 million paid to see the entire royal family estate bringing in 48 million pounds in addition to that over 21 million in retail sales.

Like it or not- they do bring in tourism.

I was thinking about this last night....

When you’re royalty and you have kids that are next in line to the throne - do you have a certain lost of names to choose from such as Charles/George/William etc?

I’d like to see a King Kev personally.

Kept me up that did last night

Dunno but apparently there is an unwritten rule that the names that were used a lot by Scottish kings like Alexander and James are not used. To avoid numbering issues.

@BroomHandledMouser

I was thinking about this last night....

When you’re royalty and you have kids that are next in line to the throne - do you have a certain lost of names to choose from such as Charles/George/William etc?

I’d like to see a King Kev personally.

Kept me up that did last night

They don't have a list, but they tend to give a few names so there is a choice

The recent royals seem to avoid John as it's seen as unlucky.

@user1477391263

Dunno but apparently there is an unwritten rule that the names that were used a lot by Scottish kings like Alexander and James are not used. To avoid numbering issues.

Alexander is one of George's names so he could potentially use it if he wanted

They just use the higher number anyway. There was never a Queen Elizabeth in Scotland before QEII

If George opted to be King Alexander he'd be Alexander IV, even though there hasn't been a King Alex in England before.

I think we are very very lucky William was born before Harry. Katherine very much lives up to the role of future Queen consort. Megan is an attention seeking nightmare. Glad she is gone and now irrelevant

I think if Harry had been born first and was to be king, marrying Meghan wouldn't have happened

Charles will never abdicate, he has been waiting to become king all his life.

However, I think his reign may well be the last. He's a meddler, he has tried to meddle in government policy before and once he gets to sit in the big chair, he'll think he has some sort of right to have a say in what goes on. He'll never be as popular as his mother, and there will be a shift in public opinion, especially as people of my MIL's generation, who tend to love the royals, die off.

It can't come soon enough for me. It is a ludicrously outdated institution and I want to be a citizen, not a subject. Although I think it you have to have a monarch, Betty Battenberg has been a pretty good role model.

Even if the monarchy survives Charles' reign, it will be in a very different form: slimmed down and less formal.

I hope so.

I've a lot of time for the Queen and her work ethic but other things about her do intrigue me ( how she could possibly favour Andrew , for example?)
Her children all seem pretty messed up and been divorced ( apart from Edward) and just how cold they all seem to each other. I know that families are rarely perfect etc, but I've always felt there was something missing with all of them and I bet she prefers her animals and horses to most of her own family!

Charles always seemed out of sorts and although I'm sure he'd take his King duties very seriously I bet that deep down he would rather just be the Duchy and do his own thing ! His 72 now (I think ) so might not even be King for years yet anyway! Would the UK want an older man on the throne ? We have had the Queen since she was 25 so know no different, but this would be a bit odd I think and I'm not being ' ageist ' here either ! Would he want all that responsibility when he'd rather just retire? I've no idea , but when the Queen dies I do feel there will be a sea change of some kind.
I think they have slimmed it down a lot over the years : maybe Charles would just be a figure head ?
I can't see it being abolished yet but I think support for them will wane a lot in the next decade or so.

Like it or not- they do bring in tourism.
Old chestnut. Paris gets way more overseas visitors than London and they beheaded theirs....now there's a thought..

@Pebblexox

We can't afford to not have a monarchy. The money they bring into our country, far outweighs that of much else. They're a selling point nowadays. Especially with all the drama surrounding them, people are more interested than they have been, so when life is back up and running I believe believe london will see a big boom in tourism.

Fully agree. The Royal family is a massive tourist draw. It will certainly help the country bounce back after covid.

I'd vote for Princess Anne. She's the only one with an ounce of common sense or any contact with reality

I wouldn't vote for her, but she's the least dreadful of all of them imo. She seems refreshingly down to earth compared to most of them and I don't recall her ever doing anything that has made me wince inwardly, unlike her siblings.

@lifeafter50

Like it or not- they do bring in tourism. Old chestnut. Paris gets way more overseas visitors than London and they beheaded theirs....now there's a thought..

Yeah because £69 million is to be sniffed at

Who cares about Paris? This is about the monarch.