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.

I think popularity for the monarchy will decrease when Charles is king but I do think william will try his hardest to do what is right by his country and I think the popularity might increase again then

Given her poorly trained dogs I'm always surprised how popular Princess Anne is on here.

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

Not a chance. James I was referred to James I of England and James VI of Scotland, but after that the distinction wasn’t made again.

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?

They traditionally use previously used royal names. Also, the Queen has to approve the name. No idea if this is true, but I read that she vetoed the name Annabel - the original choice for Beatrice - as ‘too yuppie’.

Nah. Think of the tourist revenue from the Coronation (Hopefully after the pandemic).
I reckon people will cope with an elderly King. He will live as long as his parents, another 25/30 years (lost track of how old he is. So will I am will be knocking on retirement himself by the time he is actually king. I expect Oz and Canada will ditch it as head of state.

Queen Victoria's son Albert her successor was thought to be someone no-one would be able to see as a King he was seen as a bit of a dandy and a guy who just wanted to have an easy life. He however went on to become King Edwars VII and was a very popular King.

Do I think Charles will manage that turn around? No I doubt it but nor do I think he will mess it up completely. The royal family provides us with a lot of income each year so I doubt very much it will be demonished

Tourists would still visit x royal residences.

So many royalists arguments center around how much money the royals bring in, but we could cater better for tourists if the palaces and castles were no longer public funded 2nd and 3rd homes to this one over-privileged family and thrown open properly. Like Versailles they would bring in more £££ that way.

The royals could fade into obscurity, or pay for their own lifestyle and the security bill which goes with it and stick with living in the properties which actually belong to them.

Sadly, I think you are wrong, OP.

Obsequious, grovelling, frantically forelock tugging serfs still seem to outnumber those of us who can clearly see what a thoroughly ridiculous institution the RF is.

[quote Gingertea2020]@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.[/quote]
Whitlam didn’t have the numbers in both houses to get the legislation he needed, to ensure that the government had funding, eg to pay social security, passed. That’s called “supply”. The upper house refused to pass supply.

It’s similar to the situation in the US a few years ago when the government had to shut down because congress wouldn’t pass their equivalent funding legislation.

Whitlam approached Kerr, the governor general, to approve supply without the support of the upper house. Kerr refused. Whitlam suggested he could have Kerr removed as GG and appoint another GG who would agree to it. Kerr raced to find out if he was allowed to dismiss Whitlam’s government to prevent this. Kerr asked the Palace (in letters with a senior adviser to the Queen), which said yes, and a high court judge, who said yes. Kerr went ahead and dismissed the government.

The way Kerr chose to do this meant that a general election was called. The Liberals won the election and Malcolm Fraser became prime minister.

Correspondence from the Palace foreshadowed that this would happen and that Fraser would have Kerr to thank if he became prime minister.

The letters from the Palace have been recently released and their contents have been misreported in the Murdoch media for political reasons. The Queen’s adviser said that the dismissal was legally permissible (that’s ok) but also said that it could be favourable for the monarchy and that Fraser would benefit (that’s not ok). It’s not as simple as saying that the Queen did not know what Kerr was going to do.

Oh and also it’s not correct to say we don’t know who the GG is - they are not elected, that’s true, but it is a public appointment and we know about their career and generally have a good idea of their political views.

@StillCoughingandLaughing

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

Not a chance. James I was referred to James I of England and James VI of Scotland, but after that the distinction wasn’t made again.

It was stated after the court case over how QEII was to be known in Scotland (as there was no previous Queen Elizabeth of Scotland) that any future regnal number would be whatever was the highest would be used

Did anyone ever read The Queen and I by Sue Townsend? We could do that- chuck them all into social housing in the East Midlands, see who does best and let them be the right and true monarch. As I recall Anne took to it really well in the book. We could even put cameras in the houses and make a reality TV show out of it, send the money that generates back to HMRC to help with the fall-out from Corona Virus. It’s a good idea AND it would make some quick cash.

@AllTheWhoresOfMalta. I love that book! Trying to persuade my ds to read it.

Loves that book! I think she encapsulated their personalities really well. Especially PC

They should just end it now. Many people wouldn’t notice if the Queen disappeared tomorrow. She’s been MIA in some of the most turbulent times this country has ever faced.

During Brexit, not one statement to reassure us and help heal bridges. Coronavirus, one prerecorded five minute statement in March.

What is the point of her?

@Tellmetruth4

They should just end it now. Many people wouldn’t notice if the Queen disappeared tomorrow. She’s been MIA in some of the most turbulent times this country has ever faced.

During Brexit, not one statement to reassure us and help heal bridges. Coronavirus, one prerecorded five minute statement in March.

What is the point of her?

Of course she’s been missing in bloody action! She’s 94 and in the most vulnerable group in the entire population. Do you want her visiting care homes?

Brexit is totally political. There’s nothing she could say without being construed to take sides. It would be highly inappropriate for her to say anything about it.

@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

Well Andrew is out and David was the name of Edward VIII who abdicated so they wouldn’t want that either.

I agree that Covid-19 has highlighted the pointlessness of some of the more frivolous sections of society: celebrities, royalty, ridiculously overpaid footballers etc. It is the lowest paid members of society, such as couriers, lorry drivers, supermarket workers, post men and ladies, nurses, agricultural workers , rubbish collected who have literally kept the UK running. They are the people who should be exalted in our society.

And all the qualities that are generally admired in the Queen: tradition, resilience, stalwartness etc are the same characteristics that have kept the monarchy from changing its structure and slimming down. They've left it too late.

The dubious activities of Prince Andrew and watching Prince Harry try and solicit business for his wife while at a charity function were particularly unedifying too.

It is the lowest paid members of society, such as couriers, lorry drivers, supermarket workers, post men and ladies, nurses, agricultural workers , rubbish collected who have literally kept the UK running. They are the people who should be exalted in our society. I bet you're not amongst this group of people

I'd rather have a King or Queen as head of state rather than an elected muppet like Donald Trump

This.

@PatriciaPerch

I agree squanderedcore. All the harping on about how kate and william were coping in lockdown too when they have no money worries and staff fgs and most probably home tutors. It is completely detached from everyone elses reality

But it’s not. It’s the reality of a whole tranche of society. Wealthy people everywhere live like this, which is why they’ve kept their heads well under the parapet recently if they’ve got any sense.

Of course she’s been missing in bloody action! She’s 94 and in the most vulnerable group in the entire population. Do you want her visiting care homes?

Brexit is totally political. There’s nothing she could say without being construed to take sides. It would be highly inappropriate for her to say anything about it.

But that just underlines the point the poster you were responding to was making. She's not necessary. There's no point to her role. We don't need her, she doesn't do anything that can't be done just as well by someone or something else, she's entirely expendable.

Id rather have Charles or William than another politician. Relieved it's not likely to be Harry