Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Should William be our next king ?

340 replies

Lardlizard · 05/12/2020 21:20

Yanbu for yes
Yabu for no

OP posts:
PurpleDaisies · 05/12/2020 23:55

@baubling

If we abolish the monarchy we would have to choose a president.

Just imagine how well that would go.

Why would it automatically be a disaster? It would be our choice.

Do you really think it’s better that one nominated family is the source of all kinds and queens? It’s like the bloody Truman Show. What democratic country would ever choose to set up that as a system nowadays?

DdraigGoch · 06/12/2020 00:11

@PurpleDaisies

I'm not keen on the royal family but looking around the world the whole president thing seems pretty hit and miss as well...

Presidents aren’t usually chosen because of who their dad is.

The fact that our society allows its head of state to be determined in such an undemocratic way is an embarrassment.

So how did America have two President Roosevelts, two President Bushes (and nearly had a third), and almost have two President Clintons? Not all of them were fathers & sons but all of those matching surnames are not a coincidence.

The US is a hotbed of nepotism. Take the universities: Which fraternity you got into gets you far more connections than the 'old school tie' does in Britain.

Not even the British Labour Party is immune from nepotism. Will Straw, Seb Corbyn, Laura Murray, David Prescott. Does anyone really think that each of them got jobs/candidacies in the party without a helping hand from daddy?

Leaannb · 06/12/2020 00:13

@baubling

If we abolish the monarchy we would have to choose a president.

Just imagine how well that would go.

Ummm....You already do for the most part. Your Prime Minister fulfills the duty of a President minus hosting. Abolish the monarchy and make the Prime Minister a dual role of head of State
TibetanTerrier · 06/12/2020 00:17

@GlummyMcGlummerson
You know that if Charles abdicates, it wouldn't go to William it would go to Andrew? And nobody wants that.

Err, no. Andrew would have to knock off 7 relatives to get his hands on it.

Iamthewombat · 06/12/2020 00:19

Andrew would have to knock off 7 relatives to get his hands on it.

Let me be the first of many to say: I wouldn’t put it past him!

Iamthewombat · 06/12/2020 00:20

Actually, I’m now thinking: Royal Hunger Games.

Leaannb · 06/12/2020 00:21

@DdraigGoch...THat goes back to out very beginnings. John Adams was our 2nd President and his son John Quincy Adam's was our 6th President.
Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt were 5th cousins and Eleanor Roosevelt was Theodore's neice.
Jeb Busch was never very nearly a President. Not at all.
There was never nepotism in those instances. They were voted in.Not given any special treatment.

CounsellorTroi · 06/12/2020 00:22

So how did America have two President Roosevelts, two President Bushes (and nearly had a third), and almost have two President Clintons? Not all of them were fathers & sons but all of those matching surnames are not a coincidence.

They were still elected though. George W Bush did not inherit the presidency from his father.

Original poster
Lardlizard · 06/12/2020 00:24

Anyone remember the funny thread we had on here live on the day of Harry’s wedding
About Micheal curry
I wish could find that, it was making me cry with laughter

OP posts:
AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken · 06/12/2020 00:28

I'm surprised by all the "no's"
I thought it was a logical move. I can't imagine the faff of having all new money and the big coronation for such an elderly king. I thought it made much more sense to skip Charles and let William have it.

AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken · 06/12/2020 00:31

Also, I have always being a staunch anti-royal but seeing the crowds at the recent royal weddings made me see how much pleasure they bring to other people and how much other people care which has made me a little less vehement in my dislike.

CounsellorTroi · 06/12/2020 00:33

@AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken

I'm surprised by all the "no's" I thought it was a logical move. I can't imagine the faff of having all new money and the big coronation for such an elderly king. I thought it made much more sense to skip Charles and let William have it.
Assuming the Queen will live at least as long as her mother, Charles would be 78 when he accedes to the throne. He could still have 20 years left in him if his dad is anything to go by.
daisypond · 06/12/2020 00:34

@AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken

I'm surprised by all the "no's" I thought it was a logical move. I can't imagine the faff of having all new money and the big coronation for such an elderly king. I thought it made much more sense to skip Charles and let William have it.
How on earth is it logical to skip Charles? It’s illogical.
PirateCatQueen · 06/12/2020 00:39

Another vote for abolition.

Quaagars · 06/12/2020 00:39

This sort of attitude is how we ended up with Boaty McBoatface

Grin
AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken · 06/12/2020 00:42

Are you Camilla? Why are you so angry? 😂
It's logical because he will be coming up to 80 or over and although his parents are still alive in their 90's, to have a new king be so old and frail and unable to do many of the jobs required (as both the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh are) seems like a huge waste of money and will just feel like a wait until he dies. The monarch has been old for my entire life. If they want to gain any momentum and relevance in the public eye they need a more dynamic and visible leader and family.
It's what other countries have done.

BananaPop2020 · 06/12/2020 00:42

Royal Hunger Games 😂😂

NiceGerbil · 06/12/2020 00:43

Not much point in comparing the two probably? The set up is different.

UK head of state has zero political input while in USA the role is v political and able to affect stuff.

I used to think ditch the monarchy but now I think. Meh.

Would need to consult the other countries who have Queen as head of state as well or you could end up in a mess where UK ditches monarchy but they are still head of state for other countries etc.

I'm not fussed tbh. Whoever we have will cost £££, could cause division in society (it would be political etc), be vulnerable to all this election interference and whatnot that we've had.

And you'd need to get rid of all the stuff really. The pomp and ceremony that current monarchy does and replace it with something else for £££ cost and that would likely be a bit shit.

It's a wining and dining thingy. It must be dull as fuck tbh. And being polite to whoever you are told to make nice with.

I did like that thing about the Queen, when the Saudi chap came. Driving was banned for women. Bunging him in a range rover and driving him around the place Grin

Another thing there. If it was a vote thing there'd probably be little chance of a woman doing it? Dunno. Just a thought.

PixelatedLunchbox · 06/12/2020 00:43

No. How rude to even suggest it.

Iamthewombat · 06/12/2020 00:44

If they want to gain any momentum and relevance in the public eye they need a more dynamic and visible leader and family.

They will have their work cut out with William’n’Kate. Yawn. The opposite of dynamic.

NiceGerbil · 06/12/2020 00:45

The whole point is that they have to keep their noses out. Dynamic is not in the job description.

AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken · 06/12/2020 00:52

I suppose we'll all find out for ourselves whether or not he'll be skipped and whether it was the right decision soon enough 😊

Bikingbear · 06/12/2020 00:53

I think the Queen has slowly and quietly been handing more of her job to Charles in the last 5 years. He's served the longest apprenticeship known to man. Its time for him to take the top job.

Thinking of the senior royals who work, Anne, Edward and William. Anne's getting older, Ed will be about for a while and William.

If you skip Charles and go to William, who else is able to carry out visits and other engagements?
Not to mention how does he learn all the stuff that the Monarch actually does, including all the political stuff. Ok the Queen was pushed into the role very young but times are different.

safariboot · 06/12/2020 00:59

That would really shaft Charles. That said if he wants to abdicate, either near-immediately or after a short reign, that's his choice. And it is quite possible his mum will outlive him anyway!

I certainly don't want the monarch replaced with an elected politician. Completely abolishing the role, and leaving the Prime Minister as head of state, might be reasonable. But I think then Britain would need to create a codified constitution. While that can act as a check and balance it can also create inflexibility, and to be honest I don't trust our current crop of politicians to write a constitution worthy of standing for centuries.

Topseyt · 06/12/2020 01:02

how did America have two President Roosevelts, two President Bushes (and nearly had a third), and almost have two President Clintons? Not all of them were fathers & sons but all of those matching surnames are not a coincidence

They were elected just like all the others were and didn't inherit the presidency. They just happened to be related.

Not nepotism at all.

As for what I think should happen to the monarchy after the present Queen dies, I think it should pass on to Charles. He has been preparing for the role for decades.

He is 72 though. The Queen is 94. If she has inherited the longevity of her own mother (who lived until she was 102 if I remember rightly) then it could still be in few years before the Charles becomes King.

I would presume that there must by now be a "plan B" in place in case Charles is unable to take on the role - such as his health fails or something like that. Would it then pass on to William in a Regency type situation? Possible.

There is also the uncomfortable possibility of Charles pre-deceasing his mother, in which case it would pass to William after the Queen dies.