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 hope so bloody grifters

Well I have just watched the programme on princess Anne . What an inspiring woman . Hard working , dedicated and not wanting the lime light or attention at all . What a life she has led . Hats off to her .

SusieOwl14
Yes - but that description fits the majority of people who do difficult or dangerous jobs with low reward and no privilege to soften their exhaustion.

@StoneofDestiny

SusieOwl14 Yes - but that description fits the majority of people who do difficult or dangerous jobs with low reward and no privilege to soften their exhaustion.

They really can’t win, can they?

Honestly, by the time Liz dies Charles probably won't have long left either. It'll probably go straight to Wills.

I think that it will continue with King Charles but will come under increased scrutiny. I wonder if down the track THEY may decide that they don't want to continue? For example, Prince George may say when he's older that he would rather live a 'normal' life.

Yes - but that description fits the majority of people who do difficult or dangerous jobs with low reward and no privilege to soften their exhaustion.

But the point is surely that Anne used her privileged position - which she was born into and had no choice about - to do something of value. She could have been like Auntie Margo, swanning about at premieres, shagging toyboys and puffing on a B&H on Mustique.

alsohuman
It's not about that. It's the idea of elevating and praising one families efforts that are far from extraordinary, when they are rewarded substantially by hard working taxpayers and allowed a life of extreme privilege by accident of birth.

Nothing is extraordinary about their efforts and nothing will stop functioning if they don't exist.

Since Andrew and Fergie were shunted off - nothing has changed (except the hostility to monarchic privilege they brought on themselves). Since Philip moved aside - nothing has changed (except more hostility to his arrogant attitude). Nothing changed when Margaret of her mother died - except more revelations about their extravagance and racist views. Nothing has changed since Harry and Meghan flew off - except tonnes of newspaper inches and revelations about the family. Nothing changed since William and Kate battened down their hatches in isolation (While key workers turned up and did extra hours of gruelling service every day)

Too much credence is given to how important they all are - the gap is so easily filled and the extravagance, arrogance and indulgence is patently obvious to all and money keeping this pantomime going could better be directed to the NHS, Police, Prison and other essential services.

Did you even bother to read the very pertinent point @StillCoughingandLaughing made before posting that diatribe? The majority of British people are happy with the status quo.

also human
Assume 'diatribe' is attributed only when you disagree with someone.

I'm not happy with the status quo and am able to voice my opinion - thankfully this is a democracy.
The very idea of curtsying or bowing to an entitled family is extraordinary in the 21 century as is handing over hardworking taxpayers money (from many already struggling to pay their way) to multi millionaires.

I would not be troubled if the monarchy were to end with the death of the Queen. I have no interest in this over privileged, pampered family. The only member who I paid any attention to has now gone, which is a shame, I think.

'The very idea of curtsying or bowing to an entitled family is extraordinary in the 21 century as is handing over hardworking taxpayers money (from many already struggling to pay their way) to multi millionaires.'

It does seem odd that all the curtsying and silly traditions continue. As morale boosters and reasons for celebrations like jubilees etc or networking with other heads of state and raising profiles of charities fine, but I can't stand all the forelock tugging outdated procedures and protocols. I'm no fan of Harry but the fact it would be deemed a 'break with protocol' to make an unannounced visit to his granny seems absurd.

While key workers turned up and did extra hours of gruelling service every day Did you?

@StoneofDestiny

also human Assume 'diatribe' is attributed only when you disagree with someone.

I'm not happy with the status quo and am able to voice my opinion - thankfully this is a democracy.
The very idea of curtsying or bowing to an entitled family is extraordinary in the 21 century as is handing over hardworking taxpayers money (from many already struggling to pay their way) to multi millionaires.

The money that the Royal Family get to spend doesn't come from taxpayers. For example the Queen's money comes from a portion of the income that the Crown Estate generates from things like rent. The Crown Estate makes about £330 million a year, 25% of that passes to the Queen and the rest is passed to the Government. Travel, property maintenance and the "civil list' (passed on to some other Royals) comes out of that 25%.

So, the money the Queen gets to spend and fix her palaces with doesn't come directly from tax payers. However I'd argue that "we" should own the Crown Estate, so therefore the Queen is funded by money that "we" should be getting rather than being funded by money that "we" are currently paying. If that makes sense.

There's then an additional raft of expenses that are very hard to total up (I'd suggest this obscurity is deliberate). There are security costs that the Government pays and also things like local authorities having to pay for certain things when there is a Royal visit.

Furthermore there are then things like the Duchy of Cornwall which are set up to fund the heir to the thrown and have special rules about taxation. So again it's not money from the taxpayer as such but rather money that, I'd argue, that the Government should be getting more of anyway.

So it's complicated, it's certainly not as simple as saying that tax payers fund the Royals.

Nah, KC will twin the fat. PA will continue to be kept out the way, the Princesses married well so don't need royal money, Anne's kids work, Edwards kids will work eventually and will just be rich people with titles.
Megan and Harry will stay abroad and as they aren't financed anymore it won't matter, or they'll divorce and he'll come back and plead forgiveness and repent and be forgiven.

By the time it's KW&QK the kids will be post education so I'm the military or working as royals - in 20/30 years most of those doing the hard work now will be ancient or dead so there will be enough to keep the kids busy and I think within his reign it'll go the way of European royalty so not abolished just less significant. George will be in training but Charlotte and Def Louis/baby 4 will have jobs

Well, being close to people who have had to arrange royal visits to towns/events etc, I can assure you a vast amount of money is put in to refit and paint up areas they ‘might’ visit, cater for the entourage, police and clean up and that is even before the visit - then security and policing for the event and clean up after. It’s a money guzzler.
Like Andrew insisted on his first daughters ‘princess’s’ wedding - cost of policing was vast for their ride about (not to mention sweeping the homeless aside). Yet attendance was scant - disinterest from the public at large but cost to them was huge. The homeless were still homeless after the farce was over. No shame.

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).

Isn’t this due to the Internet and 24 hour rolling news age though rather than an actual lessening of interest. . Stories and pictures about Kate don’t sell newspapers and magazines any more because we can see them online whenever.

fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/

Yes @Chocforthewin, people really do their research, shouldn’t they?

@Alsohuman

fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/

Yes @Chocforthewin, people really do their research, shouldn’t they?

He admitted it himself in a Rotherham speech in 2017 👌🏻

@Alsohuman

fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/

Yes @Chocforthewin, people really do their research, shouldn’t they?

fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/

Read the whole post: he was in charge

This is what he said. He neither had nor admitted personal responsibility.

When the investigation report was published in January 2013, Mr Starmer said in a statement that he accepted the conclusions and hoped it would be a “watershed moment” for the CPS.

He said: “I would like to take the opportunity to apologise for the shortcomings in the part played by the CPS in these cases.

“These were errors of judgement by experienced and committed police officers and a prosecuting lawyer acting in good faith and attempting to apply the correct principles. That makes the findings of Ms Levitt’s report more profound and calls for a more robust response.”

@Alsohuman

This is what he said. He neither had nor admitted personal responsibility.

When the investigation report was published in January 2013, Mr Starmer said in a statement that he accepted the conclusions and hoped it would be a “watershed moment” for the CPS.

He said: “I would like to take the opportunity to apologise for the shortcomings in the part played by the CPS in these cases.

“These were errors of judgement by experienced and committed police officers and a prosecuting lawyer acting in good faith and attempting to apply the correct principles. That makes the findings of Ms Levitt’s report more profound and calls for a more robust response.”

Don't be telling me to do my research thanks. I said he was in charge during that time - and he was! The link you posted even said the same 😂 it's all very well of him blaming staff beneath him

I know. Let's have a referendum !