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.

People absolutely visit sites associated with the RF and they bring in lots of tourism money that way. There's really no doubt about that. What we don't know is whether this would still happen if the RF no longer existed but the palaces etc still did.

Admissions to the Royal Estate in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2018/19, by establishment (in 1,000s)*

Visitors in thousands
Windsor Castle and Frogmore House1,652
Buckingham Palace552
Palace of Holyroodhouse439
The Royal Mews196
The Queen's Gallery, London175
The Queen's Gallery, Edinburgh69
Clarence House11

All in which brought a heavy 48.4 MILLON in admission fees and added to that 21 MILLON in sales

People still want to visit them and they do bring in a substantial amount of money

There's an enormous flaw in that argument. Ask yourself what people are visiting. Is it the Royal Family? That's a no, because even if they were in residence at those properties, visitors would be kept away from them. They are visiting the properties, not the Royal Family.

And if you are trying to say that no one would visit if the Royals were retired ... look at the Louvre, which had a whopping 10.2 million visitors in 2018. That's over 6 million more than the combined British properties, based on your figures above - and France got rid of their Royals in 1792.

That's my point really. What's yours? I'm not really sure. I'm a farmer and we had to keep the sheep going through lambing. That doesn't make me a hero since life didn't really change and there is no social distancing on a farm. People working on Covid wards are a different matter altogether. I just get the sense that on MN there are very few people that rub shoulders with ordinary working people. Like the people who lift dead stock, fence my fields, cut crops for me etc etc. I appreciate their work but I don't lionise them nor do I patronise them. We all have our niche in the world. I bet William occasionally would prefer to spend his days fencing. However he's been trained for this jaob all his life. A bit like farming really. Very hard to leave.

What we don't know is whether this would still happen if the RF no longer existed but the palaces etc still did.

Versailles gives us a very strong steer. Yes. Much more so.

Monarchy may be good for tourism, but getting rid of monarchy (and opening up palaces further) is even better.

Christ I hope so. Especially after the racism that drove Harry and Meghan away.

Those houses would have MORE visitors if the monarchy was abolished as they could be open all year round, rather than only during summer.

Versailles is what I was thinking of, and mentioned upthread.

@PicsInRed

Those houses would have MORE visitors if the monarchy was abolished as they could be open all year round, rather than only during summer.

Excellent point.

@Pelleas

Admissions to the Royal Estate in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2018/19, by establishment (in 1,000s)*

Visitors in thousands
Windsor Castle and Frogmore House1,652
Buckingham Palace552
Palace of Holyroodhouse439
The Royal Mews196
The Queen's Gallery, London175
The Queen's Gallery, Edinburgh69
Clarence House11

All in which brought a heavy 48.4 MILLON in admission fees and added to that 21 MILLON in sales

People still want to visit them and they do bring in a substantial amount of money

There's an enormous flaw in that argument. Ask yourself what people are visiting. Is it the Royal Family? That's a no, because even if they were in residence at those properties, visitors would be kept away from them. They are visiting the properties, not the Royal Family.

And if you are trying to say that no one would visit if the Royals were retired ... look at the Louvre, which had a whopping 10.2 million visitors in 2018. That's over 6 million more than the combined British properties, based on your figures above - and France got rid of their Royals in 1792.

The Met police estimated that 1 million people took to the streets in London to try and catch a glimpse of Kate and wills wedding.

The Louvre is the worlds biggest museum of course it’s going to attract shit loads of tourist.

Why does it irritate you that folk still like the monarchy in the U.K.

@derxa

That's my point really. What's yours? I'm not really sure. I'm a farmer and we had to keep the sheep going through lambing. That doesn't make me a hero since life didn't really change and there is no social distancing on a farm. People working on Covid wards are a different matter altogether. I just get the sense that on MN there are very few people that rub shoulders with ordinary working people. Like the people who lift dead stock, fence my fields, cut crops for me etc etc. I appreciate their work but I don't lionise them nor do I patronise them. We all have our niche in the world. I bet William occasionally would prefer to spend his days fencing. However he's been trained for this jaob all his life. A bit like farming really. Very hard to leave.

The view that "we all have our niche in the world" may not be shared quite so fatalistically by those earning a mininium wage. My point was not intended to lionise or patronise but to highlight the genuine social justice issues that Covid-19 has exposed. One example being that suddenly it was possible to house the homeless during the pandemic when for years prior to that, it was deemed too expensive or impractical. I was suggesting that our values in a society where let's say the more frivolous members are lionised (celebrities, royalty etc) are perhaps a bit skewed?

And although I value tradition in the sense of historical continuity (I also love mounted military parades and bands!) I'm no longer convinced that a monarchy serves our country well as it encourages a system whereby the privileged remain at the top of the pile and there is less social mobility in 2020 than there was twenty or thirty years ago. It's a bit depressing frankly and I don't think an objective assessment of why this remains the case (including a blunt look at the role of the monarchy) would be entirely out of order. I'm not saying that the monarchy is entirely responsible for such social disparity, but that it may be one contributing factor among many.

see article here

Why does it irritate you that folk still like the monarchy in the U.K.

It doesn't irritate me that people like the monarchy - it irritates me that the monarchy exists. People liking something doesn't mean it has merit - a lot of people like heroin but that doesn't alter its detrimental impact on society.

whereby the privileged remain at the top of the pile and there is less social mobility in 2020 than there was twenty or thirty years ago. No doubt there are many worthy studies which prove you correct but I find that hard to believe. The rich and the sharp elbowed will always push their way to the top. Then you've got the aristocracy. Will you get rid of them? Public schools? You will never stop the rich and privileged making connections and controlling power and money. Name these countries which are your ideals. I'll bet some of them have a monarchy.

Then you've got the aristocracy. Will you get rid of them?

They're next on my list after the Royals.

Then you've got the aristocracy. Will you get rid of them?

Yes, of course. And the House of Lords, which should be replaced by an elected Senate. This is about three centuries overdue!

Of course the MNetters with their 'six figure salaries' probably in public service jobs will then be at the top of the pile. But they'll still be bleating that society is not fair and not letting workmen use their fucking loos

And then who do you go after because of their privilege? Because there will always be someone.

do aristocracy get funded by the tax payer? confused I thought they were self funded... They are but were given land and titles by the king so therefore part of the Evil Empire.

And then who do you go after because of their privilege? Because there will always be someone.

Once we have got rid of the monarchy and aristocracy, the next step is to introduce a law limiting salary (and overall remuneration) multiples within organisations. So, just as an example, we might say that the highest earning employee cannot be paid more than 10x the lowest earning employee - including ancillary benefits. This puts an end to the fat cat culture - or at least, if the executives want to be fat cats they can only do so by raising their entry-level employees to at least the level of well-fed cats.

I am a lifelong republican.

But Trump, Johnson, Brexit have all shown the failings of democracy. Particularly when that democracy is ruthlessly manipulated by outside sources and increasingly shows the selfish, insulated, “I’m all right jack”’voters I see littered around social media.

I would rather take my chances with a head of state literally bred for public service than the electorates or the people who want to be in charge at the moment:

I don’t think it’s right, but I don’t think any of it’s right at the moment.

@Snaleandthewhail

I am a lifelong republican.

But Trump, Johnson, Brexit have all shown the failings of democracy. Particularly when that democracy is ruthlessly manipulated by outside sources and increasingly shows the selfish, insulated, “I’m all right jack”’voters I see littered around social media.

I would rather take my chances with a head of state literally bred for public service than the electorates or the people who want to be in charge at the moment:

I don’t think it’s right, but I don’t think any of it’s right at the moment.

The monarchy have no meaningful political influence - or at least, no more than any celebrity might have and probably less because there are constraints on what they are allowed to say. So I don't see that their removal would make the situation you describe better or worse.

It would be for the public to decide whether we wanted the PM to assume the role of Head of State. I agree, Johnson is dreadful but he can at least be voted out, unlike a King or Queen we were landed with but didn't like. We'd have the option of an elected head of state who wasn't necessarily of the majority government (like the US presidential elections are their own thing) or even an apolitical figurehead, again elected, but chosen purely for their qualities as the country's representative - diplomacy, charm, apolitical achievements, general ambassadorial ability and so on.

@Pelleas

And then who do you go after because of their privilege? Because there will always be someone.

Once we have got rid of the monarchy and aristocracy, the next step is to introduce a law limiting salary (and overall remuneration) multiples within organisations. So, just as an example, we might say that the highest earning employee cannot be paid more than 10x the lowest earning employee - including ancillary benefits. This puts an end to the fat cat culture - or at least, if the executives want to be fat cats they can only do so by raising their entry-level employees to at least the level of well-fed cats.

No, I’m pretty left leaning but that’s too far for me.

@Pelleas

And then who do you go after because of their privilege? Because there will always be someone.

Once we have got rid of the monarchy and aristocracy, the next step is to introduce a law limiting salary (and overall remuneration) multiples within organisations. So, just as an example, we might say that the highest earning employee cannot be paid more than 10x the lowest earning employee - including ancillary benefits. This puts an end to the fat cat culture - or at least, if the executives want to be fat cats they can only do so by raising their entry-level employees to at least the level of well-fed cats.

Ah communism... well we know how well that turns out..

I prefer the the way it is, the head of state is there till they die or abdicate which is usually a long time. This offers stability, in republics new heads get elected every few years costing thousands. It would be like the GE over and over again and then the real GE in between. No thanks

They are not politicians so less chance of corruption. They are raised from birth to be the head of state and will act accordingly to fulfil the job rather than some like Donald trump causing shit on Twitter.

Our system isn’t perfect but it does work.

@Pelleas I know, I know, I know... I have argued against constitutional monarchy since my early twenties. But your phrase

It would be for the public to decide whether we wanted the PM to assume the role of Head of State.

Terrifies me at the moment...