Should the monarchy end with this queen?

[ivykaty44]

YABU Charles will be the next king, we can’t pick and choose and the system should go on

YANBU the monarchy should end and we get to vote on a president in future

Yes it should end.

are they going to re-mint all the currency to update to Charles? And then again when HE dies? Waste of money.

Re the money, no of course they don't "re-mint" the currency . Money stays in circulation until it is worn out . A new monarch simply means that all newly minted money has the new monarch on it .

@AuxArmesCitoyens

If Charles and Di were unable to conceive for any reason, we would be looking at King Andrew in about five to ten years.

If there was a chance he'd end up on the throne, the Queen would have taken action to ensure he wasn't. He's already been stripped of any responsibility, she would not let him take her crown. And if Diana and Charles hadn't had the boys, (and he hadn't found someone else to provide him an heir) the idea of Queen Beatrice would seem less bizarre because it would have been the presumption from when Diana died / he got with Camilla. The two Princesses would have had different lives to what they've had.

@Fangdango

When people say we can't have a president because we'd end up voting for Blair / Trump etc I always wonder if they have the same objection to an elected House of Commons. I mean look at the state of Boris. Let's just stick with the House of Lords?

The role and purpose of the Commons is entirely different though!

However, I would support the abolition of the House of Lords.

Yes it should. I don't think it will, but I think it should.

If the alternative is voting in a president and all the political jostling, lies and shit that come with that; then my answer is a firm no.

Charles and William seem okay as far as unelected rulers for life go. Affairs and all. Some interference with parliamentary democracy and looks like abuse of honours system from Charles but I'm sure presidents get up to similar, and the Queen seems to manage the former too, with her scrutiny of bills. More serious in those we can't get rid of, mind, but the men are only particularly different from the Queen because they're not grannies, surely

But how can you look at George and say yes, future king? It's madness. He's what, eight years old? Why on earth should he be put in this position?

@Furbulousnous

‘ So one awful human being in a family should remove all of them? ’

Oh trust me, I have a myriad of reasons why the Royal family should go, the ridiculousness of being ‘rules’ through hereditary privilege should be enough on its own but my comment was here was directed towards the use of ‘bad eggs’ in reference apparently to the Queens son who is accused of rape and sex with girls too young to consent while hanging out with a paedophile. I’d said he was a bit more than a ‘bad egg’ and he is being protected by his royal status and his inherited royal wealth .
Any ordinary man would have been in jail long before now…

Really any non royal man would be in jail? Really? So you think it’s only Andrew who raped those young girls, because as far as I can see it’s only a woman who’s been tried for anything in the case. Look at the UKs rape conviction numbers- it’s not royal privilege it’s male privilege.

I think they should stay. I think the positives outweigh the negatives and I've realised over the years that actually Charles, William and Kate seem to have rolled up their sleeves and got stuck in to an awful lot of worthy causes - if their influence and position can actually make a difference then I say good for them. The Prince of Wales has always been really vocal about the environment/climate change, pushing for change. And William and Kate are doing a lot of work through the Royal Foundation on causes that are actually worthwhile. William has also chucked his weight behind the Earthshot Prize, which is literally to encourage scientists to find ways to reverse climate change and some really astonishing stuff has come from that.

Just to add - if they were all arrogant, entitled arseholes like Prince Andrew I would say get rid if them, but I actually don't think they are. I think the right ones are the ones in direct line for the throne. And I would rather have them than more politicians - fucking hell, more politicians, no thanks very much. I think it's good that Boris still has to go tail between legs to the Queen, he needs taking down a peg or ten.

No, and it won't.

@GalesThisMorning

I asked this on another thread - how does it end? Do we vote them out? Who calls the vote?

It would require an act of parliament. Either introduced via a private member's bill, proposed by the party of government or moved by the opposition party on an "opposition day".

But imo no party is ever going to campaign for abolition for fear that it would spoil their chances of winning an election. The tabloid press would crucify them, a royal story on the front page increases their sales/click rate no end.

A referendum on the subject would be a good idea, wouldn't it?

@VelvetChairGirl

Long overdue getting rid of them should never have brought them back in the 1600s

Interesting you bring up Cromwell, who was a dictator. As Lord Proctector of England he 'ruled' with an iron fist, enforced puritanism, persecuted other religions and made his son his 'heir'. The people were desperate to restore the monarchy. Power corrupts. Always has.

‘ Really? So you think it’s only Andrew who raped those young girls, because as far as I can see it’s only a woman who’s been tried for anything in the case.’

No, I do not think he’s the only one. But does that make him any less of a rapist???
And yes, so far only one woman because our ‘Prince’ Andrew appears to be a slippery wee fucker using his enormous Royal wealth and privilege to evade every attempt have him answers the charges… everything from giving media interviews ( tho look where that got him) to victim blaming to trying to use technicalities to squirm off the hook to spending millions on his legal team.
I can see why you’d be jumping to defend him with a ‘it wasn’t just him’ defence. Always a winner. 🤦‍♀️

The Prince of Wales has always been really vocal about the environment/climate change, pushing for change.

I haven't noticed much change in his lavish lifestyle, upkeep of several estates and usage of private jets/helicopters when he wants. Pushing for other, much less privileged people to change, sure.

‘ I asked this on another thread - how does it end? Do we vote them out? Who calls the vote?’

That one is actually quite simple - we get our democratically elected government and leaders to change the law. So ironically the unelected Royals who we did not vote into power would essentially be voted out.

The Prince of Wales has always been really vocal about the environment/climate change, pushing for change

Let's hope that when gets to sit in the gilded chair, he puts a stop to game shooting on the royal estates then. Maintaining land for game birds is awful for biodiversity.

And all those big, draughty, old houses must be badly in need of improved insulation.

If there was a chance he'd end up on the throne, the Queen would have taken action to ensure he wasn't. He's already been stripped of any responsibility, she would not let him take her crown.

I have zero faith that this is true. I think the crown and future monarchs are protected above all else. I've seen former tabloid journalists saying that if they had a story about William, they'd be given a story about Harry and asked to publish that instead. I think we would know far less about Andrew's indiscretions ( ) if he were next in line.

I can't understand why we have a royal family. What for. How is it possible to be born to rule? Does that not seem entirely absurd when you really think about it?

We should abolish the monarchy and follow in the footsteps of our republic neighbours.

if there was a chance he'd end up on the throne, the Queen would have taken action to ensure he wasn't

How exactly, short of having him executed? The whole point is you can't pick the next in line, whether they are a Nazi sympathiser, homicidal maniac, serial adulterer or corrupt child abuser.

@Furbulousnous

‘ Really? So you think it’s only Andrew who raped those young girls, because as far as I can see it’s only a woman who’s been tried for anything in the case.’

No, I do not think he’s the only one. But does that make him any less of a rapist???
And yes, so far only one woman because our ‘Prince’ Andrew appears to be a slippery wee fucker using his enormous Royal wealth and privilege to evade every attempt have him answers the charges… everything from giving media interviews ( tho look where that got him) to victim blaming to trying to use technicalities to squirm off the hook to spending millions on his legal team.
I can see why you’d be jumping to defend him with a ‘it wasn’t just him’ defence. Always a winner. 🤦‍♀️

I didn’t defend him and I really think that is a low way to win a debate- but to make out he’s the only one getting away with crimes because of his status is disingenuous, I’d love every man involved to be behind bars, including Andrew - the reason they aren’t isn’t because of their families.

@TheKeatingFive

Would we want to run the risk of having a president like Trump?

This argument is so stupid. You came quite close to getting Andrew and unlike Trump you wouldn't have been able to get rid of him.

Agreed - plus you already have Trump - his name is Boris Johnson. That’s the equivalent example.

I love how royalists trot this out ignoring for example all the wonderful presidents Ireland have had - which is the correct comparator as the royal family and president of Ireland are ceremonial roles.

‘ The Prince of Wales has always been really vocal about the environment/climate change, pushing for change.’

He has in many ways. While driving Landrovers, flying around the world in private planes and helicopters,.
Mind you as he doesn’t pay tax on the profits from his Duchy of Cornwall products he can afford to travel in style.
Plus, in a lesser, occasional figurehead role with no powers to sign ( or in theory ) reject Acts of Parliament he could still advocate for the environment and would be freer to actually voice his opinion as he wouldn’t be hamstringed by political protocol that says the Royals, as UNELECTED leaders, should stay out of politics.

The royal family are the biggest hypocrites out there on environmental issues. Private jets to get to Cop26 ? Seriously?

I’d prefer we didn’t have a monarchy, but I accept that most people in this country prefer to have one (not scientifically researched, and god save us from any more referendums)

I’d be perfectly happy with just a much slimmer down monarchy. The numbers of hangers on need to be massively reduced. You only need the monarch and any direct heirs involved, the rest is just a waste of money.

I can't understand why we have a royal family. What for. How is it possible to be born to rule? Does that not seem entirely absurd when you really think about it?

Exactly. I can see why it made sense in the Middle Ages, when the sense of stability it brought was important and the people were too disorganised and ill educated to question it.

But now? Its just hopelessly backwards and immature of a country to want to be governed like this.

By what right do the royals wield such power and privilege? Divine provenance? The 'blood'? Do people actually believe in any of that crap nowadays? But if not, then what explains it?