To think the royal family should end at the queen

[Letshaveablackcelebration]

I have respect for the Queen’s sense of duty but I do genuinely believe that it’s time for a conversation about the royal family. Honestly, who cares about the coming King Charles- is that really right? People mostly respect the queen but not the rest of them.

I read this article and I was one of those who thought their interview showed up some horrible stuff- there are clearly issues with the royals

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/13/prince-harry-royal-family-like-being-in-the-truman-show

Apart from all of the drama, I don’t think that we should be funding a royal family with tax payers money when the country is in such a state & the queen is literally one of the richest women in the world. I know royals in other countries are funded differently. The fact that the tories are mooting the idea of spending millions of public money on a ne boat to remember Prince Philip is a classic example.

Aibu?

I'd have my kneecaps broken before I'd curtsey to anyone like they're better.

Wonder what happens if you don't curtsey to the Queen? Too modern for "off with their heads" but I reckon you'd get marked as "Never seeing the gracious face of the Queen ever again".

The family members all have to, I'm sure, or you'd be ostracised.

Well quite. But the idea of being subservient to Camilla is just so much worse!

Further to those expressing opinions on wealth, assets and net worth - is it not the whole point that there is a polar difference between wealth and riches acquired and accumulated through historical loot and injustice and those newly wealthy whose recent achievements are self made in creative innovative businesses with popular customer support. The latter are ultra successful business people who create wealth for themselves and their employees as well as developing and satisfying a market need. Although admittedly most big name global business empires are very optimal on legal taxation minimisation. Landed gentry royal rulers etc are there by birthright and equivalent of winning the lottery jackpot on a guaranteed regularly basis paid for by others not themselves with uber luxury state housing and their own army of staff and army. And then despite this they are still relatively dysfunctional with some in exile with parental communication issues but hypocritically and uber woke personified with the tenacity to write and commoditise books and media preaching idealised family relationships and ecology not knowing their excessive carbon footprint fit for for a …..

@JingsMahBucket

the Commonwealth would get a say and I doubt that they'd agree to get rid of them.

😂😂 Have you ever talked to anyone from the commonwealth? Especially the brown folks?

Well you haven't spoken to me.

And William - are we seriously going to take being lectured on the environment by someone who uses private jets and hunts for sport?

@girlsallowed21

Can't believe they're even a thing in this day and age! The idea that 1 family is above everyone else simply by birth doesn't sit right with me. They need to be abolished.

This

Particularly when they can’t even behave well in many cases

What kind of message does it send to our children that these people are at the top of government, not because of anything they have done or because of being chosen by election, but simply because of the family they were born into?

@Smashingorbs

Of course, it's not just the UK, but 2 billion in the commonwealth who look to the Monarchy. As ever, Brits, very introspective without considering the impact on anyone else.

I thought it was tacitly understood and accepted by HM that Commonwealth leaders will no longer wish to be lead by the monarch once the Queen dies?

Really? A simple google would tell you otherwise

In 2018, following the 2018 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Commonwealth leaders declared that Charles would be the next head of the Commonwealth.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_the_Commonwealth

@OneFamilyToRuleUsAll

I'd have my kneecaps broken before I'd curtsey to anyone like they're better.

Wonder what happens if you don't curtsey to the Queen? Too modern for "off with their heads" but I reckon you'd get marked as "Never seeing the gracious face of the Queen ever again".

The family members all have to, I'm sure, or you'd be ostracised.

So reactionary with no facts

There are no obligatory codes of behaviour when meeting The Queen or a member of the Royal Family, but many people wish to observe the traditional forms. For men this is a neck bow (from the head only) whilst women do a small curtsy. Other people prefer simply to shake hands in the usual way.

www.royal.uk/greeting-member-royal-family

@Wannakisstheteacher

And William - are we seriously going to take being lectured on the environment by someone who uses private jets and hunts for sport?

And who has three children......

If we were to do away monarchy tax payers would about £300 million a year worse off as they’d lose the money from the Crown Estates. Don’t let facts get in the way of your narrative though.

Not even slightly true. The crown estates don’t belong to the Windsors, but a legal entity called ‘The Crown’ and they would have no claim to them if they were not longer the monarch.

I've always loved the Royal family and have a lot of respect for the Queen but yes I do think it should now end after the Queen.

And this, in a nutshell, is the problem with the argument the OP has put forward, and that I’ve seen many others put forward on MN over the years. ‘I like the Queen, but maybe after she dies...?’ is not an effective or relevant argument. I’m not a Republican, but I do fully understand the arguments in favour of it. And if you seriously believe in the idea of a republic, ‘Let’s just let it happen when the nice old lady we all like dies’ is not the angle to take.

The entire basis of the monarchy - the basis on which most republicans object to it - is that it’s a hereditary form of power/privilege. It’s not Big Brother or Strictly Come Dancing; you can’t just vote out the ones you don’t like, or keep pressing redial for the ones you want to make the final. The entire concept is that the eldest child or closest living heir of the current monarch succeeds them when they die. There’s no job interview, public vote or suitably test. If you want a republic, you should want it now, regardless of who is on the throne. The monarchy isn’t the Queen, or Charles, or William - it’s the institution. THAT’S what you’re for or against.

Apart from anything else, ‘Scrap it when the Queen dies’ is laughable from a practical point of view. The Queen could die tomorrow, or she could live to be 110. Do we start planning now, or do we wait for her to die and start the morning of the funeral? Because it will take a huge amount of planning. Look at the mess that was Brexit - and that was after only 50 years. Try to imagine unpicking a constitutional system that’s been in place for centuries, and which also affects the government of several other nations. If we’re not even going to look at it until the Queen dies, we could easily have ten or fifteen years of King Charles. Also, what if she outlives him? What if the people who want to base the system on whether or not they like who’s in charge say, ‘Oh well, we quite like William, and the kids seem sweet...’ Do we scrap any planning for a republic and go back to square one?

If you’re in favour of a republic, fine - argue for it. But come up with an argument and a plan that doesn’t ignore the entire premise of the monarchy.

I would like to keep the monarchy but would opt for the slimmed down version that is oft mooted. We are in limbo at the moment until HMQ dies, that's when such discussions will start to seriously take place and by seriously I mean people in power, the media and the remaining RF. At the moment it's mostly just chatter on the internet and the odd DM article when a poll has been done.

Somebody above mentioned Buckingham Palace. It's well known none of the RF including HMQ and PP like the place as a home and didn't actually want to live there when she became Queen. I doubt Charles wants to leave Highgrove nor do I see W&K in turn wanting it to be their main residence.

It would make sense to partially turn Buckingham Palace into a tourist attraction and allow tourists to visit some sections. They could do this and still retain the staff offices and just close it to the public on official occasions such as state visits and occasions when they need to use the balcony or have garden parties

Maybe that's naive and running it in a half/half way would be too complicated and expensive to be worth it. It just seems to me it shouldn't have to be all or nothing.

Yes I know you don't have to, as in legally but you'd have to be happy with looking like an arsehole to not do it when everyone else is. It's more a social "have to". The Queen isn't exactly stopping people from doing it. That should let people know it's really okay but she'd rather keep the status quo.

Unspoken rule and all.

@OvaHere

I would like to keep the monarchy but would opt for the slimmed down version that is oft mooted. We are in limbo at the moment until HMQ dies, that's when such discussions will start to seriously take place and by seriously I mean people in power, the media and the remaining RF. At the moment it's mostly just chatter on the internet and the odd DM article when a poll has been done.

Somebody above mentioned Buckingham Palace. It's well known none of the RF including HMQ and PP like the place as a home and didn't actually want to live there when she became Queen. I doubt Charles wants to leave Highgrove nor do I see W&K in turn wanting it to be their main residence.

It would make sense to partially turn Buckingham Palace into a tourist attraction and allow tourists to visit some sections. They could do this and still retain the staff offices and just close it to the public on official occasions such as state visits and occasions when they need to use the balcony or have garden parties

Maybe that's naive and running it in a half/half way would be too complicated and expensive to be worth it. It just seems to me it shouldn't have to be all or nothing.

Buckingham Palace is open to tourists.

It is the working office and state apartments, no one 'lives' there. It's an official residence.

Charles uses Clarence House when in London and I dare say William will too when he is PoW.

This forum really is not representative of what the general public thinks, it's left-leaning on the majority of discussions, not even centrist.

@OneFamilyToRuleUsAll

Yes I know you don't have to, as in legally but you'd have to be happy with looking like an arsehole to not do it when everyone else is. It's more a social "have to". The Queen isn't exactly stopping people from doing it. That should let people know it's really okay but she'd rather keep the status quo.

Unspoken rule and all.

Cherie Blair managed it

I still maintain it's a backwards culture. You can call it small curtsey all you like and claim people choose to because they've written you don't have to. That's the conditioning speaking. Can you imagine if Meghan chose not to? That's how you know you still have to - written or not.

[quote 21Flora]@UrAWizHarry that’s not what I said though is it? There are thousands and thousands of billionaires in the world, of which the Queen isn’t one.

You have entirely ignored my point that the taxpayers of this country would be worse off without the Queen by something like £300 million a year. No tax payer of this country gives money to the Queen, it’s a myth. The Queen gives money to the taxpayer.[/quote]
No, I was correcting you when you said the queen isn't one of the wealthiest women in the world when by any sane metric, she is.

And your point about the taxpayer being worse off isn't true, either.

@OneFamilyToRuleUsAll

I'd have my kneecaps broken before I'd curtsey to anyone like they're better.

Wonder what happens if you don't curtsey to the Queen? Too modern for "off with their heads" but I reckon you'd get marked as "Never seeing the gracious face of the Queen ever again".

The family members all have to, I'm sure, or you'd be ostracised.

Cherie Blair refused to curtsy. I’m pretty sure she ran into Her Maj once or twice over ten years as the PM’s wife.

Cherie Blair managed it

Good for her. How's their relationship?

Anyone else?

Buckingham Palace is open to tourists.

Is it? As in you can go inside and have a tour of state rooms and such like? Genuine question because I've only visited it once to have a look at the outside, I didn't think you could go in.

@OneFamilyToRuleUsAll

Cherie Blair managed it

Good for her. How's their relationship?

Anyone else?

Why dont you phone her up and ask? you seem to know all these people intimately

I’m Welsh and don’t want another Prince of Wales but it will be imposed on us all the same.

The entire basis of the monarchy - the basis on which most republicans object to it - is that it’s a hereditary form of power/privilege

What this makes obvious, is that most people aren’t monarchists, no matter what they say to researchers.

They simply think Elizabeth Windsor is a good head of state.

You're the one claiming I'm reactionary with facts, why don't you give me the facts of what happens when you don't?

StillCoughingandLaughing I agree with you that logically if we don’t agree with monarchy there is no reason to wait for the current queen to die.

But many people won’t like the idea of sacking a 90 something year old woman who has done a lot of hard work and made sacrifices (whilst living an insanely privileged life of course). That’s why there’s usually the “when the current Queen goes” caveat. It’s not about picking and choosing, it’s saying we don’t want a monarch full stop, but the death of the existing elderly and well liked monarch is a natural time to make this change.

And yes, we should start planning now.