To think the monarchy will end at Charles?

[freudien]

I've just noticed a lot of republican talk recently (prompted by the other thread on the earth shot prize, also generally twitter and recent republican stuff happening in Wales) and I wonder whether it's because I'm in an echo chamber? Or is MN also an echo chamber? Either way. Are you a royalist or a republican?

Personally I feel the royal family is worth the money spent but should be kept out of politics. Kind of like other european monarchies.

But then on the other hand by dissolving the aristocracy wouldn't we be solving the problems of inequity in society?

She can (and does) put pressure on PMs

How do you know? Have you been to the private weekly meetings or read it on Twitter?

You wouldn't know it from MN or many online circles, but at this time, most people like the monarchy and want to keep it. They might be wrong to feel that way, but they do.

It would be interesting to see a king giving the necessary royal assent to the Act of Parliament that gets rid of him and all he stands for.

The Brexit referendum was bad enough, I absolutely could not face a monarchy/republic one. I'd have to leave the country for a while. I think we let their popularity fade until everyone agrees to Wexit. Shouldn't be long now.

There's no place today for unelected representatives like the royal family or the House of Lords. Both need to go, and I really don't understand the reasons for keeping them (tourism not a reason people will still come to visit the palaces etc.). I know English people and some from the other home nations have affection for the family but I just can't see how the royal family and the aristocracy and everything that goes with them can be justified.

@TheKeatingFive

Sure, let's get rid of one of the UK's unique selling points because a few people can't handle anything akin to authority or prosperity very well and naively believe that eliminating one of our main sources of revenue will bring 'equality'

What a bizarre thing to say.

There's no evidence they produce any revenue. If we got rid of them we'd still be able to hawk the history stuff to tourists in the way that Versailles does. We could divert duchy and sovereign grant money to the actual public.

Many people misread how the U.K. is seen from abroad. Anyone I know just thinks it's a bit embarrassing that the U.K. clings to a mode of government that made sense in medieval times, but is totally ill suited to the present. It comes across as a very childish way to want to be governed.

There's no evidence they produce any revenue.

Totally agree. If anything they produce revenue to enrich their own coffers.

Nobody knows what the future holds, but to the best of my knowledge monarchies have only been deposed at a time of war or other great upheaval. I don't think any country has got rid of a monarchy through referendum, but there's always a first time I guess.

I'd say what's more likely is that the monarchy will be 'trimmed down' to more closely resemble a ceremonial head of state. That means everyone other than the sovereign, their consort and the heir will have to get jobs. More royal properties should be put to profitable use too.

I think the monarchy will stumble on, but it will not be the extravagant affair of the past. Benign indifference will likely be as good as it gets for them from this point onwards.

Get rid of them. If I had any respect for them it would have been wiped with the whole Andrew affair and him hiding behind Mummy’s legs.

I think the queen should abdicate now and that should be an end of the monarchy and all titles.

There is no need for them at all.

Queen Elizabeth realises the importance/power of silence,

she realises the importance of never ever letting anything she says/writes see the light of day. And getting her flunkies to do things like apply for the winter heating grant for her etc.

As for William and Kate - privately i have always thought Kate wanted to marry the heir to the throne and went all out to do it. She'd be hugely disappointed to miss out

Imagine Boris as president.

Why would he be? Assuming the HoC wouldn't give up power, and that the Mother of Parliaments would continue to be an (elected) 2 chamber affair like many other modern democracies then executive power would remain with the PM. The head of state would do exactly what the queen does but without the crowns and the ridiculous bowing/curtseying.

There is no reason it must be an ex politician. We could invite anyone to stand for election. I'd even vote for Princess Anne. Or how about Floella Benjamin? Tanni Grey-Thompson? Doreen Lawrence?

The German president isn't voted for by the public, there is no reason why a UK president would have to be voted for by the public either.

I wish they'd just end it now. Absolute waste of space, the lot of them.

As for William and Kate - privately i have always thought Kate wanted to marry the heir to the throne and went all out to do it. She'd be hugely disappointed to miss out

She won’t miss out though, because none of them are going anywhere.

What happens to the RF funding if the monarch ends? Presumably that would also be the end of taxpayer funded "working royals" so how would they afford to keep their homes and security. Would K&W have to find civilian jobs or would there be some kind of arrangement so all of them continue earning enough via property, investment funds etc?

@AppleBlueberryPie

What happens to the RF funding if the monarch ends? Presumably that would also be the end of taxpayer funded "working royals" so how would they afford to keep their homes and security. Would K&W have to find civilian jobs or would there be some kind of arrangement so all of them continue earning enough via property, investment funds etc?

I think the 'working royals' thing is coming to an end in any case. It's kind of an outdated notion. I think in the future only the sovereign, their spouse and direct heir will be publicly funded. The rest will have to get jobs and pay for their own homes. It's not as though they'll have any problems doing so. With their connections they'll have their pick of careers, no matter how dim they might be.

@IcedPurple yes, Italy did in 1946.

Interestingly the results showed a huge national north-south split, I think there were only 2 million votes more in favour than against.

I suspect that the demographic that most passionately supports the royal family and idolises the queen doesn't actually KNOW or care much about the Prince Andrew scandal, know or care that Virginia Guiffre has filed a civil case against him in the US, know or care that the queen is standing by him and covering his legal fees. Therefore none of it will impact how they feel about it.

And... I suspect that in the vanishingly unlikely case of a referendum (launched by a suicidal political party? Hardly the Tories, and Labour knows better than to risk it), they'd all vote in droves to protect their queen, while all the British Republic-leaning middle classes who talk about "abolishing the monarchy" over dinner won't actually bother going out to vote.

I firmly believe that remaining in the EU had vastly more support than leaving it, but complacency kept remainers at home, and I bet it would happen again if there was the opportunity to dissolve the monarchy.

I'm not sure any individual heir to the throne even HAS the power to dissolve the monarchy without the consent of parliament? Could they? It could be that all you could do is abdicate, and presumably legally the next in line could say "Hey, I'll do it!". You'd have to get a LOT of people to say they wouldn't take it if it passed to them. There's 20 people we've heard of and probably another couple of hundred after them!

www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/g31928340/british-royals-line-of-succession/

[quote ChurchofLatterDayPaints]@IcedPurple yes, Italy did in 1946.

Interestingly the results showed a huge national north-south split, I think there were only 2 million votes more in favour than against. [/quote]
Thanks, I didn't realise Italy had a referendum.

It was in the immediate aftermath of WWll though, so my point about war and upheaval still stands. All of the European monarchies which were around after WWll are still around now. That doesn't mean they'll stay of course, but I think it would take something major to oust them.

There is no place for a royal family in modern society. They need to step down. The fact they haven't just shows how out of touch and deluded they are.
You can't help but respect the Queen as a person but the younger royals are a joke.

Charles has been fighting environmental issues since before most politicians could spell environment.

Who would you like as head of state as a replacement?

@mustlovegin

Can you provide a link to figures showing the royals are one of our main sources of revenue?

This question is always asked on these threads, and it denotes a complete lack of understanding of how the economy works.

British traditions (which include a reigning monarchy) are a key driver of economic output. It's not the takings of a few postcards and a couple of mugs at a souvenir shop. They permeate many and vast sectors as diverse as hospitality, entertainment, education, fashion, property, the list is endless. Also industries are closely intertwined and the continuous feedback cycle makes it impossible to cleanly attribute revenues to the monarchy in this way - but if it were possible, it would be much more than £86million pounds, that's for sure.

Yes, indeed.

It's impossible to say and yet the claim is made endlessly on these threads and then predictably refuted by vague flannel and waffle.

while all the British Republic-leaning middle classes who talk about "abolishing the monarchy" over dinner won't actually bother going out to vote

Astoundedgoat why wouldn’t republicans bother to vote? I thought the main reason why remain supporters didn’t vote in the EU referendum was because they thought remain would easily win?

And... I suspect that in the vanishingly unlikely case of a referendum (launched by a suicidal political party? Hardly the Tories, and Labour knows better than to risk it)

There seems to be plenty of support for abolishing the monarchy on mumsnet. Is this a particularly republican minded forum or do you think it represents a cross section of what British people believe?
If the latter then why would having a referendum to keep/abolish the royal family be ‘suicidal’?

Charles has been fighting environmental issues since before most politicians could spell environment

And having wagged his finger at the great unwashed he'll jump into a helicopter probably followed by attend a weekend wildlife massacre.

attending

@Andante57

And... I suspect that in the vanishingly unlikely case of a referendum (launched by a suicidal political party? Hardly the Tories, and Labour knows better than to risk it)

There seems to be plenty of support for abolishing the monarchy on mumsnet. Is this a particularly republican minded forum or do you think it represents a cross section of what British people believe?
If the latter then why would having a referendum to keep/abolish the royal family be ‘suicidal’?

I don't think its necessarily representative. There was a thread the other day about free range chicken and it seemed a majority of posters refused to buy factory farmed meat. If you actually look at the stats on what people buy, vast majority of meat sold in the UK is factory farmed. Honestly I think if there was a referendum on the monarchy tomorrow, the British public would overwhelmingly vote to keep them. Honestly I reckon is would be 90% plus

I don't know if it will end with Charles but I suspect it will end. There's a huge generational gap in support for them (and younger people seem to have really soured on them in the last couple of years).

It'll be a good riddance from me.