Should William be our next king ?

[Lardlizard]

Yanbu for yes
Yabu for no

The monarchy is such an anachronism now. They are funded by the taxpayer mostly, and a bit from the vast Duchy of Cornwall lands.

Are you all happy that hundreds of them are living the dream, not because they worked hard for it, but because we are paying for these people who really have little to offer in real life. Because they never had to.

@Alys20...you are so right. Kate and William set “a lovely example” of......what? Privilege? Entitlement?

@WoolieLiberal

Yes. Wills and Kate are a lovely couple who haven’t had any mud thrown at them or thrown any at anyone else.

Also she’s not born royalty so injects some fresh, healthy middle and working class genetics into the next generation of royals.

They both come across as down to earth, met at uni and married for love.

They set a great example.

Yes the monarchy “isn’t fair” and I’m sure there are loads of jealous people here who want is abolished, but most of the world’s happiest, most forward-looking and best run countries are monarchies (think Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Canada) probably because the monarch has only an advisory and ceremonial role in government whereas many countries that have Presidents concentrate too much power in the hands of one man (and it usually is a man still, sadly).

They have 3 children They travel by 4X4 or helicopter (or private train this week apparently!) They have 2 homes and access to many more that are lived in only as holiday homes. They lecture us all on the environment.

You couldn't make it up. They don't get the hypocrisy , they just live in. a bubble where they are so removed from reality.

Kate Middleton never worked a day in her life. Same goes for the other hangers on. But they seem to be able to ski in Winter and go to the Maldives or the like in Summer to some great accomodation. Only because they are Royally connected, no matter how far down the tree they are.

We did work hard, we had to. But are paying for these people also. Mad isn't it, that those with small enough income support those with lots, and for what?

I think it would be great if it was slimmed down to immediate family - so Charles' children. That way, the theatre element could continue for tourists but we wouldn't have people that no one has ever heard of costing the state. (If that's the case? Like the Kents?).
If these family members had jobs and lived in the real world (although still with amazing career opportunities being given to them because of their connections... so not really the real world) that would be educational for the remaining royals. It would give them more understanding of issues in society and help them to become more relatable.
I can't understand why Harry and Megan got such fury from William for wanting to earn their own living. It's admirable and they're paving a model for other royals. Surely that's a good thing.

@Onetwothree456 but H&M aren’t doing anything other than trading off their Royal connection. THAT is why they are feted, no other reason.

[quote BananaPop2020]@Onetwothree456 but H&M aren’t doing anything other than trading off their Royal connection. THAT is why they are feted, no other reason.[/quote]
I thought they are planning to do speeches and make Netflix documentaries? And I assume Harry still runs the Invictus Games (although who knows how much involvement he actually has). If they've been part of the royal family and Harry is the son of (Saint) Diana, then it's fair enough that they use that as a base for their celebrity to make a living.

No, becayse my understanding is he does not wish to be. He wants to wait until his children are grown up .

His father Charles doesn’t particularly want to do it either now and would stand aside for William if he wished to , but , because William doesn’t want to for at least another twenty years, Charles will. William sees it as something he should do much later in life and wants to raise his kids first without that pressure.

@Onetwothree456 the point is, without the Royal connection none of these things would have happened. It has nothing to do with talent, ability or hard work.

To hell with them all, and I sadly include her Maj in that. She has engendered this entitled cohort for good or for ill. Andrew is squeaky clean of course, but can afford a million plus ski chalet just the same.

Sick of the lot of them. Idiots and slackers. We are paying for this remember.

There is absolutely no recompense to the taxpayer. At all.

[quote BananaPop2020]@Onetwothree456 the point is, without the Royal connection none of these things would have happened. It has nothing to do with talent, ability or hard work.[/quote]
That's true. Although I suppose you could say being a very famous senior member of the royal family has been his "career" since he was a teenager. That was requested by the queen and he wasn't given a choice on that (hence the big upset when he "resigned") so he might not have had permission to choose a real job other than his former traditional army role.
By all accounts, he's not particularly academic, so a career might have had to be something vocational which probably wouldn't have been allowed for a senior working royal.
I don't know why I'm defending him, by the way. I'm not a royalist at all and there's no doubt that he's had an amazing free ride through a life full of privilege and opportunity (although also living in a Truman show goldfish bowl which is no doubt stressful and horrible in it's own way). But I think it's great that they've made a commitment to attempt to work and pursue their own goals in life.
It shows some level of passion and drive which is refreshing, compared to Kate and Wills.

I would much prefer it be scrapped right now but being totally realistic, there’s a much bigger chance of getting it done if it happens at a natural point of ending, ie after the queen. She’s also very popular. Charles much less so.

I do understand your thinking. What I struggle with is people who genuinely believe the Queen could be our last monarch because it can all just stop when she dies. I can see why people might want to start the discussion then, but realistically, the referendum wouldn’t happen for two years after her death - and that’s before you even consider the upheaval involved if we did vote to go republican. It would take years - and throughout those years, we’d have a monarch, which would be Charles.

In purely practical terms, the only possible way the Queen could be our last monarch is a) if we started the process to disestablish the monarchy immediately and b) she lives to be circa 105. There is absolutely no way for the monarchy to automatically cease on her death.

@TibetanTerrier I cam see his reasoning! Problem is he’s been charles for as long as most of us can remember, I can’t see anyone starting to call him George. Half the press still call the Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton!

I reckon Charles will stick, and he will go down in history as the third unlucky Charles. The one who saw the death of the monarchy. Quite neat really.

I just think it is sad that they are born into a life in which they have no choice

Groomed from an early age- if it was not the royal family it would be seen as illegal- to condition young children to a destiny about which they have no choice.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50879901

OP thinks those people ‘work hard’?! How the fuck does anyone’s brain make that up? Outrageous.

[quote Wandafishcake]@TibetanTerrier I cam see his reasoning! Problem is he’s been charles for as long as most of us can remember, I can’t see anyone starting to call him George. Half the press still call the Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton!

I reckon Charles will stick, and he will go down in history as the third unlucky Charles. The one who saw the death of the monarchy. Quite neat really.[/quote]
That is her name though! It isnt wrong- there isnt really a correct name for her. As she is a commoner it is more complex.

Her first name is Kate/Catherine
She doesnt have a surname other than Middleton, you go by your family dynasty name- ie Middleton as she is a commoner

She could legally be Catherine Cambridge- but William doesn't use Cambridge. He used Wales before he was made Duke of Cambridge but that isn't correct any longer. Charles was born Mountbatten (father) Windsor (mother) but then technically became Wales (which he didn't use but his sons did in the forces)

She isn't Princess Kate as you have to be born into the role to have princess first

@WillSantaBeComingToTown of all the people you could feel sorry for due to birth circumstances, these are the ones you choose?

@evenBetter my thoughts exactly. This is how brainwashed and delusional some people are in this country.

Kate's concept of "hard work" has involved relentless social climbing and then creating a very successful brand based on her undeniably beautiful and charming persona, which involves poncing about in designer clothes and living in mansions PAID FOR BY US, and then not only expecting adulation from the plebs for wearing the clothes we paid for, but also seriously believing she's doing something worthwhile by bestowing her presence at random charitable events.

William, get back in your helicopter and make your contribution. The rest of them should just disappear into oblivion, they are nobodies and no use to anyone except themselves.

Thanks but I'll take sermons, lectures and awareness-raising campaigns from actual MH professionals, medics and working parents who have to work so hard year after year that their jobs make them ill. Not from gilded cage dwellers.

The pp who said "I just think it's sad they have no choice" made me laugh. Clearly that's bollocks, as proven by Harry (but that's for a different thread).

I think the word she was looking for is "shame". The royals have no shame.

@PurpleDaisies

The reality is that the aristocracy and very poor would still be born into the same levels of wealth/poverty which isn’t fair.

Yes, but that isn’t a reason to keep the head of state as hereditary.

And it’s not a reason to abolish it because it would make fuck all difference.

@BeSureToDrinkYourOvaltine, any man would be kind and reasonable if, without even having to get out of bed, they received upwards of 500k per annum in bona vacanti from people dying without a will. The Queen also gets similar funds from the Duchy of Lancaster.

It's medieval. They are just parasites.

I don't believe you speak for all Cornish people, either.

And as for his "sensible vision for the monarchy", it's still based on that old fallacy of "hardworking royals".

Why don’t we have a referendum then we’ll see if the majority of the country agrees with you?

Surely that would be the right thing to do?

Oh actually no, because the uneducated would vote the wrong way as they always do, wouldn’t they

@WoolieLiberal

Why don’t we have a referendum then we’ll see if the majority of the country agrees with you?

Surely that would be the right thing to do?

Oh actually no, because the uneducated would vote the wrong way as they always do, wouldn’t they

What are you on about? Most republicans have wanted a referendum for years.

@WoolieLiberal

Why don’t we have a referendum then we’ll see if the majority of the country agrees with you?

Surely that would be the right thing to do?

Oh actually no, because the uneducated would vote the wrong way as they always do, wouldn’t they

Do you mean the uneducated voted for Brexit? Monarchists are more likely to have voted yes to Brexit.

I don't care whether people agree or not!

It'd just be good to get the argument moving forward with facts explaining why the monarchy is a good thing, rather than snide comments.

Unfortunately, Boris and the Eton mafia couldn't run a bath, let alone another referendum.