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.

@CloudPop

I know. Let's have a referendum !

I think we should have a referendum about whether we should have a referendum. That'll sort it out.

Prince Charles is actually a very good man.
He has done so much...
His two projects have employed so many.
No , I want him as King.
I like the idea we are different, let's rejoys and be proud of our country.
I mean how come the USA can go flag crazy, buy if I put a flag up the Police would be called.

if I put a flag up the Police would be called.

No they wouldn't, and even if they were they wouldn't do anything.

@SengaStrawberry 👍👍

PC is a much indulged meddling old hypocrite.

@Chocforthewin

Why would it come to an end? Harry & Meghan left to be celebrities. That has nothing to do the Queen or our next King. Did I really read Kier Starmer should be in control? Just like when he was in control of the CPS ? He decided not to prosecute against Jimmy Saville! And how did they end up. People need to do research

Our future king was a huge fan of Saville - Saville was at one time the only person the very anti-smoking Charles would allow to smoke at Highgrove. Saville was also bizarrely brought in to counsel Diana at the time the Waleses' marriage was failing.

I'm not actually blaming Charles for this - many people were hoodwinked by Saville's charitable efforts - but if you are judging possible heads of state on their treatment of Jimmy Saville, I'm afraid Charles would have to be off your list as well as Starmer.

Prince Charles is actually a very good man
He has done so much
His two projects have employed so many

Charles has inherited an enormous amount of privilege and wealth, some of which he has used for good. Fuck only knows why that should entitle him to yet another privilege - that of being monarch. A 71 year old man on a state pension giving a tenner to charity is making a much bigger sacrifice, as a proportion of income. Would you make him king as a reward?

I just do not understand this desire to cringe to people with wealth and privilege, especially if the only thing they have done to earn it is be born.

I think that's more about how he comes across than the kind of person he is. And it's because of the posh accent, which admittedly grates on my nerves. But when you think about it, he's been right quite often. When he first expressed his concerns about the environment, before this had been widely talked about he was mocked as a 'tree hugger'. But he was right to be concerned, and he could do a lot of good if he uses his platform when King to press for further environmental action.

PW is doing a lot of positive things, too. He's raising awareness of mental health issues, particularly for men, at a time when a lot of young men are committing suicide.

Whatever our opinions on the Monarchy (and I've said that I would back a referendum on whether to abolish it), the Royal Family are not to blame for it being there, and they didn't choose to be part of that family. I'm sure that Harry isn't the only one who would like to break away from it.

You are judging possible heads of state on their treatment of Jimmy Saville, I'm afraid Charles would have to be off your list as well as Starmer

Charles is much more personally culpable. Starmer had no personal dealings with the Savile case, he just happened to be head of the CPS at the time.

Charles has spent his whole life being unduly influenced by male charlatans, from Mountbatten onwards (Mountbatten was an interesting character, who did some good, but who also made monumental cock-ups and certainly was not worthy of the hero status PC projected onto him).

Charles appears to lack critical faculties, probably because he has been cosseted his entire life and made to believe he is more intelligent than he really is. I don't dislike him as person, but I don't see why he should be imposed on me as a head of state over whom I have no say or control.

Charles appears to lack critical faculties, probably because he has been cosseted his entire life and made to believe he is more intelligent than he really is.

Yes, I think you're spot on there. He's been surrounded by sycophants all his adult life - he doesn't realise that were it not for his royal title, no one would be interested in him.

I suspect that the monarchy will carry on beyond the death of Queen Elizabeth II, but it will have to carry on changing and adapting to the times. I do think it has changed a lot over her reign, but I think the pace of change will be a bit faster under Charles, and much faster under William.

Speaking for myself, I prefer having the Queen as Head of State, rather than having a presidency - I think it provides stability and continuity, and means that the Head of State is above party politics. I look at America, and the shitshow that is the Trump presidency, and I can't imagine wanting to risk someone like that - Boris, for example - as our President.

And if you have a President who has political power - as Putin and Trump do - you run the risk of them seizing and holding onto power - Putin has done it, and there are rumours (more than rumours, in fact) that Trump would refuse to leave office, if he is defeated in November. He hasn't said so - but he has not denied it, or said he would respect the result of the election, which is very telling.

Charles comes across (to me) as vain and easy influenced by flattery. He has allowed himself to be guided by some very dodgy people. I think he will be unable to keep his opinions to himself when he becomes a King. The Queen’s popularity and success as a monarch is due in no small measure to her ability to keep her feelings to herself.

And if you have a President who has political power - as Putin and Trump do - you run the risk of them seizing and holding onto power - Putin has done it, and there are rumours (more than rumours, in fact) that Trump would refuse to leave office, if he is defeated in November. He hasn't said so - but he has not denied it, or said he would respect the result of the election, which is very telling

That makes no sense. You're worried about a democratically-elected head of state refusing to step down, so your solution is to make the head of state someone who is never elected, never steps down, and who gets the job through an accident of birth?

He decided not to prosecute against Jimmy Saville! And how did they end up. People need to do research

Em - Saville was knighted by The Queen, and a big friend of Charles.
The CPS can agree a case can go ahead if there is enough evidence presented to them.
As for the ‘protection’ given to Andrew over his choice of friends and questionable activities .......let’s see how royalty comes up to scrutiny,

The point is that our Head of State has no real political power, @MrsNoah2020 - the powers they have are largely symbolic, and in reality they cannot exercise them without the approval of Parliament. For example, the Queen dissolves Parliament before an election - in theory, she could do this any time she felt Parliament weren't doing what she wants, but in reality, she only does it at the request of the government.

A President who has political power can exercise that power in governing the country - they can imprison immigrant children, sign executive orders changing the country's laws - they have huge powers where the Queen really has almost none.

We have a symbolic Head of State who, I would argue, does a good job of being the Head of State - ceremonial stuff - but who cannot exercise power of government - that, to me, seems better than having an elected Head of State who has real political power, and can do very real damage. It works fine when the election produces a result like Barack Obama - but you can't honestly say that Trump and Putin are good arguments in favour of an elected President!

The point is that our Head of State has no real political power, @MrsNoah2020* the powers they have are largely symbolic, and in reality they cannot exercise them without the approval of Parliament. For example, the Queen dissolves Parliament before an election - in theory, she could do this any time she felt Parliament weren't doing what she wants, but in reality, she only does it at the request of the government. A President who has political power can exercise that power in governing the country - they can imprison immigrant children, sign executive orders changing the country's laws - they have huge powers where the Queen really has almost none

The US has a Head of State with wide executive powers. However, many countries have Heads of States that have little or no power, just like the Queen. You don't need a monarchy to achieve this.

And for everyone saying that they don't want a Boris or Trump, I would remind you that, if anything had happened to Charles before William's birth in 1982, the Queen would have been succeeded by King Andrew.

Hopefully!

An executive President with political power is not the only alternative to a constitutional monarchy.

@SerenDippitty

An executive President with political power is not the only alternative to a constitutional monarchy.

This is a good point, @SerenDippitty, and @MrsNoah2020 - I suppose what I am thinking is that our monarchy works well enough - better than some elected Heads of State, and in some ways maybe worse than others - but basically, it ain’t broke (in my opinion) so I don’t think it needs fixing in a revolutionary fashion.

By revolutionary, I don’t mean armed insurrection, but dramatic change from a monarchy to a republic, for example. I do think that evolutionary change is necessary, and good.

But I absolutely respect the fact that other people don’t believe in a monarchy - and I know that I am naturally small-c conservative, and find the idea of such a big change (from monarchy to whatever could follow it) scary.

The entire handling of Diana’s death was one of the Queen’s very rare major mis steps.

Utter garbage! HM did what any grandmother in those circumstances would do, she devoted her time to her grandchildren who would have been devastated, I have read that it was William's wish to go to church so Harry went too.
As for not deserting those children during the worst time of their young lives, the mobs in London putting on a show had the newspapers to gee-up their grief, they didn't need the Queen. Diana was the ex-wife of Charles, it was reasonable to assume that the arrangements would be made by the Spencer family, it was Blair who decided to make a show of it, paving the way for her obnoxious brother's 'eulogy'.

I also thought the newspapers had an ulterior motive for whipping up a frenzy about the Queen and the boys coming back to London. It deflected attention away from the direct role the media, and in particular the paparazzi, had played in Diana's death.

I can’t get my head around that Charles’ popularity seems to be soaring. He’s come a long way from when he wanted to be Camilla’s tampon while his emotionally vulnerable young wife was chucking herself down palace staircases.

HM did what any grandmother in those circumstances would do, she devoted her time to her grandchildren who would have been devastated, I have read that it was William's wish to go to church so Harry went too

She could have devoted her time to her grandchildren in London. There’s nothing magical about Balmoral. They have a father who should have been looking after them but he went off on a wild goose chase to Paris.

I personally can’t imagine a 15 year old expressing a desire to go to church hours after being told his mum was dead. It was a massive mistake, all the adults must have known the church would be deluged with paps.

it was Blair who decided to make a show of it, paving the way for her obnoxious brother's 'eulogy'

Oh, come off it. I'm no fan of Blair, but that's nonsense. He is widely credited with having pulled the monarchy back from the brink, by defusing a lot of the public fury, and redirecting the emotion from anger to grieving. Yes, the whole thing was barking, but I bet the RF are bloody glad that the mob were at the gates of Buck Pal with flowers, not pitchforks.

HM did what any grandmother in those circumstances would do, she devoted her time to her grandchildren who would have been devastated, I have read that it was William's wish to go to church so Harry went too

Odd then how Harry, before leaving for the States, was allegedly not allowed to see his 'devoted grandmother' without an appointment - and how that was to be months after he asked! Seriously weird family.