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.

@AgeLikeWine

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!

Oh, god, elected senates are a terrible idea.

What no one needs is two houses full of political players vying for re-election.

@yourestandingonmyneck

I also cannot picture a King Charles. I think it would be ridiculous tbh, he is not a King.

I have thought for a long time that if he has any sense, for the sake of the whole monarchy, he should refuse the throne when the time comes and pass the title graciously onto William. But I doubt he will do that. Ego, probably.

^ This

I very much hope the Queen lives for many more years to come. Charles could be well in his 80s before he potentially becomes King. It would be ridiculous to spend millions on a coronation For such an elderly man and I certainly don’t believe Camilla should become Queen. Let the Crown pass to William who will Hopefully be Middle aged by then, Charles could be his ‘advisor’.

About th ecrying:

I'm not a cryer and I didn't cry about Diana. But I think it's worthwhile to understand what the monarchy stands for at the symbolic level (as opposed to the practical level where it also plays a role.)

Every state has certain symbols that embody the state, what it is, how people see themselves as part of it, to the citizens of that state. It's part of forming a group identity, where people have a shared history and set of values, or way of seeing themselves. The kind of symbols a state uses informs, if only sub-conciously, how people think of the nature of the state

In a republic, the symbols of the state are typically political, often documents or other abstract symbols. In the US it is documents like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution. Americans are citizens through a kind of social contract, the vision s that they enter freely into this contract and that is what gives it validity. So what's the American vision of the state - a bunch of individuals who agree to work together for their mutual advantage, and whose values are inherently political.

In a constitutional monarchy, the state is represented by a person - the sate is not seen as a sort of legal abstraction, but something more like a living being. Or even a bit like a family. It may not always work together perfectly and at times it might be unbalanced, but each member or part of the body is interdependent and needs the others. The idea that you need to opt in or could opt out isn't really part of the picture - you are stuck with the family you are born with, stuck with the body you are born with, and most of the time we all have to make the best of it. If one part is unhealthy though all will suffer in the end.

They are very different ideas of how to conceptualise the state.

Lol someone just exhorted republicans to ‘educate themselves’......via YouTube.

It’s embarrassing even to read such a stupid post.

OP, I don’t think it will end then but I think it should. Unfortunately I expect it will limp on for a few more generations

Agree. I don't think there will be an abrupt end to the monarchy. It will just become less and less relevant, and fade away. It's already happening - there is nowhere near the interest in Kate that there was in Di (thank god).

I expect Charles and William to be king. Not so sure about George.

P.S. Oliver Cromwell gave it a go and look what happened to him!

I'm not sure what you mean by 'look what happened to him'. Cromwell was not a particularly 'good' man to begin with - he was violently anti-Catholic and oversaw horrendous acts in Ireland but this view wasn't unique to Cromwell or republicanism - his predecessor Charles I managed to maintain strict anti-Catholic policies while being married to a Catholic. Cromwell's military skills 'won' him the Protectorate - just as many historical monarchs 'won' their crowns in battle.

However, aggressive defence policies were seen as a good thing at the time and Cromwell's 'reign' was widely regarded as successful. He was never deposed, but died of natural causes (he was exhumed and posthumously 'executed' after the Restoration). What went wrong with the Protectorate system, ironically, was the attempt to apply the same rules to the Protectorate as to the monarchy by making it hereditary and installing Cromwell's ineffectual son as his successor - Richard Cromwell was useless and this helped pave the way for the monarchy to return.

Thanks for the Key Stage 3 lesson in citizenship, @Goosefoot

I think it has probably occurred to some of us that the RF are national symbols, even before you came along to enlighten us. That doesn't mean we are tied into a constitutional monarchy forever, or that becoming a republic would cause the collapse of the state.

Trump is awful but Americans can get rid of him. If Prince Andrew had been the eldest son, we would have had no choice but to have him as king. There is no mechanism to get rid of a monarch unless s/he chooses to abdicate.

@PicsInRed

It was Britain in the 1990s not the age of some horrifically brutal dictatorship.

And yet your people were weeping in the streets, gathering around an enormous mountain of flowers and candles and teddies. It was considered normal that children should come out to comfort the mob after their Mum had just died and then walk publicly behind her coffin in their own grief. The entire thing was a total loss of control and mass madness and it was thought at one point that the monarchy could fall, thought from within the corridors of power.

This all actually looked pretty exactly like the stereotypical mad grieving seen in dictatorships and I'm not sure those who were inside the madness at the time realise how insane it appeared from outside the UK.

There were plenty of us in the UK who saw the behaviour as insane at the time. Not only insane, but hypocritical - in the days before her death, most of the tabloids were ridiculing Diana for enjoying herself on Dodi's yacht - unsurprisingly, there was a huge undercurrent of racism in this - and many of the people who were weeping and wailing were the same people who'd been saying Diana's behaviour was ridiculous or even disgusting in the run up to her death.

It's easy to forget that Diana, although always of huge interest to the press, had great ups and downs in her popularity during her life and at the time of her death she was on a 'down'.

I was never a fan of Diana - she always made sure she was photographed cradling starving children, and so forth, but she lived a ridiculously extravagant life and no-one who can visit starving children and then drive away in a £100,000 car can really be said to 'care' about the starving children in any meaningful sense.

However, it isn't fair to blame Diana personally for the ludicrous response to her death - the institution of the monarchy in which human beings are put on pedestals is partly responsible, plus the fact that at the time the internet was in a growth period and the internet encourages we'd now call 'grief tourism' by encouraging competitive grieving - and of course, the tabloid press who were quick to disown their scornful comments of the days before and crown Diana 'Queen of Hearts'.

I unashamedly love the Queen. I think she has devoted her life to public service and takes her duty seriously. When she dies I will feel a sense of something more significant than just the loss of a single human being.

I think that the dreadfulness of Prince Andrew's crimes and the backlash post the Sussexes (and for however long they will continue to disassociate themselves from the royal family yet use it to generate income) shows that the Queen is probably the last prepared to make the required sacrifices to be a respected monarch. I used to think that I was pro-monarchy but i now realise I'm pro-QEII. If it ended with her death then I wouldn't be too upset. My only anxiety is that, whether you like it or now, she does provide (along with her advisors) some level of counter -balance to the govt of the day. I fear unfettered cruelty and hardship beyond that we have already seen without someone to be accountable to.

the Queen is probably the last prepared to make the required sacrifices to be a respected monarch

What has she sacrificed? She is sitting on inordinate amounts of wealth and property while some of her subjects are homeless. How can you love or even respect anyone who presents herself as head of the Church of England yet doesn't follow even the most basic principles of Christian charity?

would rather take my chances with a head of state literally bred for public service

Except that the queen herself wasn’t born to be queen, was she? Which kind of suggests any old randomer could probably do the job properly if bribed with Enough golden coaches and palaces.

Charles could be well in his 80s before he potentially becomes King

Only if his mum lives to a minimum of 103 which, even with her genes, would be a stretch.

What happens if the next in line happens to have health issues incompatible with public life? Tough titty under the monarchical system.

@SheWranglesRugRats

What happens if the next in line happens to have health issues incompatible with public life? Tough titty under the monarchical system.

A Regency. The precedent was set with George lll, otherwise known as Mad George. George lV was Prince Regent for years.

A regency just makes even more of a mockery of the whole farcical setup.

@Gingertea2020LastTrainEast

Puzzledandpissedoff It doesn't matter what powers the queen once had or even still has in theory. Does anyone really think if she started declaring war on other countries or ordering people executed that it would actually happen?

Yes it really does matter. The powers that the queen has are regularly exercised by the prime minister and can not be questioned by parliament as they are 'royal prerogative'

When Diana died the hypocritical hand wringing got right up my nose
even satirical radio 4 shows went all mushy

It was like some form of mass hysteria.

I was very grateful to be away when it happened and not have to deal with colleagues etc having some sort of collective nervous breakdown over it. The building where I worked had a book of condolence and for the first couple of days it was hard to make your way through the queues to get to the offices, apparently. And everyone trooped out into the garden on the Monday after her death for a minute's silence and a quick pray.

I had one colleague who, like me, was a fervent republican. He reckoned I knew it was going to happen, and booked my holiday then on purpose to avoid all the fuss.

I can't wait for it to end and really cannot understand why it hasn't already ended.

People don't tend to like change though, even when the status quo is terrible!

I think it’s naïve to imagine that voting always gets a better outcome. We need a mix of democracy and long term perspective/stability if we’re to avoid swings to the extreme right or left. Local police chiefs, local education boards etc have done nothing for the general public in the states but just result in loads of elections mostly going to the rich businessmen who can buy the election.

• She was the establishment. But she cared.

When she died, that idea died with her.*

She married into royalty and then got divorced. After that she was just a celebrity. In a sense Jade Goody with airs and graces and a pretty face.

@SheWranglesRugRats

A regency just makes even more of a mockery of the whole farcical setup.

No it doesn’t. The regency is held by the heir apparent, they just become monarch in all but name a little earlier.

I’m not a royalist but I do think YABU. I think it will just carry on 🤷‍♀️
Everyone had such warm feelings for the queen and yes, she seems to work damn hard but what has she actually “done” that is so good? She just performs her ceremonial role, she doesn’t get involved in politics or current affairs and I think actually when she has tried to get involved in current affairs she has mid-judged the mood of the country a bit (thinking of that Welsh mining disaster where she had to be told to go too late, Diana, Prince Philip and the car accident..) ... even Coronavirus, it seems she was told to issue that speech and whilst it was a pretty good speech I doubt she wrote a word of it.

Charles will be the King and everyone will get very excited and annoyed and his every move will be scrutinised for a while and then everyone will get bored and move on.

By the time William is King he’ll be even more boring and middle aged and their children will probably be late teenagers.

Meghan and Harry were interesting for a while but they were never crucial to the monarchy. One of the reasons I rolled my eyes so much at them and their self importance was that their role was supposed to be a fairly peripheral one.. they were never supposed to be equal to W&K who are the future King and Queen. Harry is the constitutional equivalent of Prince Andrew.

I fully expect that in a few years with W, K, H and M all in their 40s and mid 40s the whole thing will be a bit more boring. Everyone will then be waiting for the Cambridge children to come of age and be glamorous and exciting.

Only if his mum lives to a minimum of 103 which, even with her genes, would be a stretch.

Not that much of a stretch - her mother lived to 101 and by all accounts drank much more heavily than QEII. The present queen will also have benefited from healthcare advances since her mother's early lifespan and having the care given to royals all her life, whereas her mother only married into the RF aged 23.

Not that much of a stretch - her mother lived to 101 and by all accounts drank much more heavily than QEII. The present queen will also have benefited from healthcare advances since her mother's early lifespan and having the care given to royals all her life, whereas her mother only married into the RF aged 23. Prince Charles will be Regent that's all.

*A regency just makes even more of a mockery of the whole farcical setup."