To think the royal family are a bloody embarrassment

[MariaAngustias]

Just that - why are we paying for this bunch when we could be spending the money on essential services? Let the Queen continue then after her just get rid of the whole bloody lot of them. We have and alleged paedo, a whinging multi millionaire in his 30's moaning constantly, an allegedly corrupt heir to the throne meeting dodgy russians for money....... just go, enough. Seriously - this is all Jeremy Kyle for poshos.

Annie gets a good press, but she's an ardent Badger-gasser.

just admitted that they like to tug the forelock at their ‘betters’, then I’d have more respect for them.

You realise that making this argument is just as much bullshit as the arguments you perceive as false from the other side. Calling people stupid for believing in something is what leads to things like Brexit or the election of people like Boris and Trump.

You think it makes you sound superior, but it says a lot more about you when you make this kind of argument.

Beatrice and Eugenie are absolute airheads.

@IcedPurple

I'm pretty neutral on the RF, not very interested but I think making a family surrender all their assets to the state is a bit of a slippery slope.

But, as has been explained above, most of those assets do in fact belong to the state. Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor does not own Buck Palace or Windsor Castle. The Crown, and by extension the British nation, does.

I was replying to a post that included, YADNBU, I can't stand the monarchy and think all their assets Inc money, property, etc, should be surrendered to the state The post didn't say most of the assets or that Buckingham Palace of Windsor Castle should be surrendered, it was that all their assets should be surrendered which I still think is unreasonable.

I realise if we answer the comment that wasn't made then I was wrong.

I don’t want to see Charles as king with Camilla at his side, I’d like it to jump to William.

They are from a byegone age and haven’t modernised. Still the same attitude of arrogant entitlement.

What relevance do they have to young people here? Or in the ‘commonwealth,?

I’d like to see us ditch them after the Queen has gone. Their time is over.

Commonwealth countries will absolutely remove the monarch as head of state when the queen is gone, maybe not every single one of them, but most of them.

The alternative is wishy washy do nothing president's like France. Do you want Macron the indecisive wet flannel. Thing is president's tend to be one or the other don't they, crazy or very center ground with not much change to the state of play. Nothing amazing happens and nothing bad happens. The people of that nation just go through the motions.

Oh no, how awful. Oh to live in a country where ‘nothing amazing happens and nothing bad happens’.

*I was replying to a post that included, YADNBU, I can't stand the monarchy and think all their assets Inc money, property, etc, should be surrendered to the state The post didn't say most of the assets or that Buckingham Palace of Windsor Castle should be surrendered, it was that all their assets should be surrendered which I still think is unreasonable.

I realise if we answer the comment that wasn't made then I was wrong.*

Except that the poster you were responding to seemed to be under the incorrect impression that most crown property is privately owned by the Mountbatten-Windsors.

I seem to be in the minority but I don't want William and Kate lording it over me, I'd actually rather have Charles.

@GoodnightGrandma

I don’t want to see Charles as king with Camilla at his side, I’d like it to jump to William.

You don’t get a choice. That isn’t how monarchy works.

@MissingOrange

I think there are bound to be serious discussions after the Queen is gone. She's been monarch for so long that there is a sense of security attached. No-one has that same attachment to next gen. And I think the commonwealth is definitely done after the Queen dies. And should be done. That will be the most decisive first step.

If Charles insists on becoming King (officially, I know he's King as soon as the Queen dies), changing all the stamps and money and having an expensive coronation and everything else involved, just for William to follow a few years later, it's going to be hard to see that as anything but a massive waste of money.

Charles will insist on being King. There have been enough leaks where he's supposed to have said things along the line that he's waited long enough.

I have massive respect for the Queen, but a slimmed down Monarchy is a minimum for what should be done after she passes away.

I also think we need a new National Anthem. One that revolves around us as a nation, not one aimed solely at the Monarch. And not Land of Hope and Glory, either.

What modern offering do we have exactly for tourists to flock to this country?

Where to start - amazing coastlines, The Lakes, The Dales, The Cotswolds, Northumberland, cities and sites rich in history and heritage, world renowned galleries, museums, botanical gardens, restaurants, shops, sporting events, music and theatre festivals. There’s an awful lot to do in a pretty small country that doesn’t involve watching the changing of the guard and standing at the gates of buck house.

What Charles/George VII insists is neither here nor there. As things stand he is King at the moment there's a vacancy.

An Act of Parliament could change this, but it's difficult to see a majority for anything else.

@dreamingbohemian

Commonwealth countries will absolutely remove the monarch as head of state when the queen is gone, maybe not every single one of them, but most of them.

I'm sure I've read an article somewhere that Charles will not automatically become the Head of the Commonwealth after the Queen dies. Commonwealth leaders are apparently saying they'll elect their next head.

@GoodnightGrandma

I don’t want to see Charles as king with Camilla at his side, I’d like it to jump to William.

The point of a monarchy is that you can't pick and choose. Anyone who says they want to skip to William - what you are in effect saying is you want a republic where you can choose the head of state.

William can only become the next King if Charles dies before the Queen or if Charles abdicates, which would require an Act of Parliament to set out what would happen to the succession.

If we scrapped the monarchy, William could stand for election as Head of State but while the monarchy remains, we have no choice but to accept Charles when the time comes.

You realise that making this argument is just as much bullshit as the arguments you perceive as false from the other side. Calling people stupid for believing in something is what leads to things like Brexit or the election of people like Boris and Trump.

No, people’s selfishness and stupidity is what leads to things like Brexit, Boris or Trump. Calling out that stupidity is perfectly valid. If people believe in stupid things, then that needs to be challenged.

Another point about the Commonwealth is that, if they sever links, the preferential status for funding and other assistance may go too

Maybe that's how Charles will keep them onside - by "being seen" to campaign for more money for them

How about a national lottery for who's family next becomes Royal - they could have it for 5 years or something till the next lottery and the next family wins.

Some people are happy to live in a country where not all are equal.

I'm not.

I agree we should retire them but I think there's a fear of what would attract people to us if we did. People in the US in particular get very strangely excited about the idea of London and the Queen etc.

@Poetrypatty

I seem to be in the minority but I don't want William and Kate lording it over me, I'd actually rather have Charles.

I'd rather have someone half-sensible, who has an idea of what ordinary people's lives are like.

Marcus Rashford, maybe. Andy Burnham would be good in some ways, but I don't think it should be a politician.

@VladmirsPoutine

How about a national lottery for who's family next becomes Royal - they could have it for 5 years or something till the next lottery and the next family wins.

That's no less sensible than a monarchy - either could land us with any old criminal as Head of State.

You can’t pick or choose your next monarch if you want to perpetuate that system, unless there’s a constitutional crisis or (god forbid!) a Catholic involved in the succession. In that case, the powers of the state take whatever action they need to.
Saying ‘oooh, I don’t like Charles but I do like that nice William’ doesn’t cut it.

Indeed LakieLady.