Should William be our next king ?

[Lardlizard]

Yanbu for yes
Yabu for no

It strikes me it would be immensely unfair for Charles to just say "meh, no body likes me, I'll just retire and you can do it" with such a young family. Surely as a father and grandfather he'd want to hold off that extra pressure on them for as long as possible. It's one thing Great Granny being Queen or Grandpa being King, quite another Daddy being King and knowing you're next

@PurpleDaisies

And I don’t understand this argument about electing someone crap. No one is using that as an argument to stop electing our government.

Exactly. I rest my case.

Exactly. I rest my case.

If you are a Labour supporting monarchist you are rarer than a Cons one. Cons voters more likely to keep the monarchy.

Exactly. I rest my case.
So you’re now supporting electing a head of state?
Excellent. So you’re now supporting electing a head of state.

I thought you add earlier no one ever changes their minds on these threads.

not RTFT so sorry if this has already been said

but in the Netherlands (and I think Belgium too) the last few Kings/Queens have abdicated when they got to their 70s/80s, to "retire" and hand over to their children (generally in their 40s).

By this logic, big Liz should have abdicated 30 years ago in favour of Charles, and Charles should be handing over to William about now...

I am a Labour supporting monarchist as it happens. And no @PurpleDaisies, I haven’t changed my mind.

How strange. It looked like you were agreeing with me.

If we elect our government, why not elect our head of state?

Because we’re fucking woeful when it comes for voting for anything. Let’s not invent something else to screw up.

The people who side with you on keeping the monarchy are more likely to vote for the side which you see as a screw up.

Same with situation with the remainer voter below.

Obviously people can be whatever configuration they like but it’s quite interesting when uneducated and screw up are attached to Cons / Brexit but by that virtue - monarchists.

@VinylDetective

Because we’re fucking woeful when it comes for voting for anything. Let’s not invent something else to screw up.

That’s such a lame reason.

It is screwed up already. Choosing our head of state by the fact they’re from a powerful family is an embarrassment to democracy.

If you vote for a king, then he's not a king so YABU.

@VinylDetective

Because we’re fucking woeful when it comes for voting for anything. Let’s not invent something else to screw up.

Seriously? You enjoy being told what to do with no right to protest?

With that attitude we'll end up like North Korea.

Ok one for the monarchists. Do you believe the royals are ‘divinely appointed’ to rule over us?

Or what other reason justifies handing over such immense power and privilege to one (fairly unremarkable) family, generation after generation, no questions asked?

The crown is not a documentary
Netflics is not David attenburgh

No, because once the Queen dies that should be it for the monarchy.

Again, if you want a republic, surely you want it regardless of who is on the throne? I still haven’t seen a decent explanation of how this ‘switch-off’ when the Queen dies would work. Our entire legal system is based on a constitutional monarchy. Every law has to be ratified by the monarch - and that would include one to disestablish the monarchy. There is absolutely no way for the monarchy to die with the Queen - either she has to ratify that law, or her successor will.

@VinylDetective

Because we’re fucking woeful when it comes for voting for anything. Let’s not invent something else to screw up.

Agree.

People voted for Boris Johnson to be PM, even after they'd seen what a joke he'd been as London Mayor. And don't get me started on Brexit. So yeah, woeful is correct.

Having said that, the current situation we have, with an unelected, dysfunctional family inheriting the job of head of state is bloody farcical in this day and age.

Get rid of them all.

Spongers

@TheKeatingFive

Ok one for the monarchists. Do you believe the royals are ‘divinely appointed’ to rule over us?

Or what other reason justifies handing over such immense power and privilege to one (fairly unremarkable) family, generation after generation, no questions asked?

Of course there’s no divine appointment. They have no power whatsoever so that’s not an issue. The Queen just did as she was told when Johnson tried to prorogue Parliament last year - Lady Hale had more power.

I honestly don’t care about their privilege, there are other “aristocratic” families just as privileged. The Duke of Westminster owns half the West End and there’s some historic finagling that means they’ve never paid any inheritance tax.

Of course there’s no divine appointment. They have no power whatsoever so that’s not an issue.

I disagree. Think of the opportunities she has to mingle with the best minds and the pre-eminent leaders in the world. The events she's had VIP access to. That's phenomenal soft power if you want to use it. And all because she dropped out of the right vagina. That seems extraordinary to me.

I honestly don’t care about their privilege, there are other “aristocratic” families just as privileged.

They don't have access to wealth that would otherwise be utilised for the wider state. The sovereign grant at 82 million last year. The queen's 7 BILLION pound jewellery collection, the many palaces packed to the gills with antiques. The horses, cars, the train. How can you justify gifting someone that lifestyle, for no discernable reason, while people in this country are starving?

Fixing inheritance tax loopholes is a separate issue (and one that should of course be addressed), but I'm pretty sure the royals benefit from those loopholes too.

@Littlemissnutcracker

Has William got enough charisma for the role?

I thought the King/Queen was supposed to be pretty un-charismatic, at least that what they say on The Crown anyway :p It's not like Liz is bubbling with personality

@StillCoughingandLaughing

No, because once the Queen dies that should be it for the monarchy.

Again, if you want a republic, surely you want it regardless of who is on the throne? I still haven’t seen a decent explanation of how this ‘switch-off’ when the Queen dies would work. Our entire legal system is based on a constitutional monarchy. Every law has to be ratified by the monarch - and that would include one to disestablish the monarchy. There is absolutely no way for the monarchy to die with the Queen - either she has to ratify that law, or her successor will.

Yes I want it regardless. Now, not when Liz dies.

First we need a referendum, then elections for the head of state.

We are a constitutional monarchy but with hundreds of Acts of Parliament instead of a written constitution. We need a written constitution like other countries have (minus the bearing arms bit, obviously).

Queen can be given equal status and the right to vote just like the rest of us, no special privileges or 19 houses.

How can you justify gifting someone that lifestyle, for no discernable reason, while people in this country are starving?

Because those people would still be starving - at least under a Tory government. More ridiculous wasteful ways would be found to spend the money, like HS2 and the obscene amount of money that’s found its way into cronies’ pockets in the last six months. It’s naive in the extreme to think a government that voted against free school meals in the holidays would divert the money to those who need it.

The jewels, palaces et al don’t belong to the Queen, they’re on loan.

The jewels, palaces et al don’t belong to the Queen, they’re on loan.

But she has access to them. No one else does.

Because those people would still be starving - at least under a Tory government. More ridiculous wasteful ways would be found to spend the money

The optics of it are appalling though. I don’t know how they don’t die of shame themselves. I’m not sure what could be constituted ‘more wasteful’ than funding a private train for the royals and having residences like Holyrood that are occupied for only one week a year. I still can’t quite believe that one.

In terms of government waste it’s a drop in the ocean. Holyrood’s open to the public, it makes no difference whether it’s occupied a week or a month a year or indeed at all. Likewise Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle. You have to queue for ages if you want to see the Crown Jewels they’re so popular. In normal times they all attract tourists.

The jewels, palaces et el don't belong to the Queen, they're on loan.

They might be on loan but they might just as well belong to the Queen as no one else can make use of them and when she dies they will pass to her son and when he dies, to his son.

What's the difference between that and owning them. They don't pay rent to live in them.

I own my house, when I die, it, or it's worth, as I imagine they'll sell it, will pass to my children. Can't see the difference.

Okay, the future kings and queens can't sell them but would you want to sell if you inherited a load of palaces on top of all the other wealth?