Harry said, "my father and my brother can't escape" - but what if...

[didofido]

..after the Queen dies, and a suitable period of mourning has been observed, Charles and William issued a statement. " we have decided the monarchy is out-dated in the 21st century, and so are retiring and intend to become private citizens. Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace belong to the nation, as does the royal art collection; the jewellery given to our grandmothers and great-grandmothers belongs to the family, so we will be taking that"
Etc, etc. what would you reaction be?

I would be very pleased. A mature and surprisingly thoughtful decision from them. Young people are less and less interested in the monarchy so the end of it within the next hundred years is inevitable really. It's a historical curiosity. The Queen has devoted her life to it, but people in general have a far lower opinion of the rest of them, so to wind up the family firm after her death would seem good timing, rather than a steady decline if Charles is crowned.

There is a good chance that if parliament did dissolve the monarchy then BP would be sold off to one of their mates for cheap and they would then apply for a grant for it's upkeep paid for by the taxpayers (see JR-M).

I think when the Queen dies BP may opened more to tourists and no longer so much a residence. I think that's a good idea.

Why would Charles do that?
If IF they did ask you say then another Royal will take up the role. Maybe that one would channel Henry VIII that would make for interesting news

@JADS

There is a good chance that if parliament did dissolve the monarchy then BP would be sold off to one of their mates for cheap and they would then apply for a grant for it's upkeep paid for by the taxpayers (see JR-M).

I think when the Queen dies BP may opened more to tourists and no longer so much a residence. I think that's a good idea.

Don’t worry Sadiq Khan would build more bloody (un)affordable homes in place of BP and the Royal parks .. imagine The Mall having terraced houses either side just like Corrie

Sorry but if it’s a choice between the RF and ending up with a president Trump, Blair, Johnson or whoever my vote goes to the RF

@paralysedbyinertia

Fine by me. The monarchy is an anachronism in any case.

Not sure about the jewellery, though. Some of it, like the crown jewels, surely belong to the state, not the family. Wherever possible, the jewels that we stole from former colonies should be returned to their countries of origin.

The Crown Jewels belong to the Crown.

Unless specific items have been given as presents to members of the royal family (eg as a wedding present from the leader of another country), it all belongs to the Crown.

And the Crown in this instance means the country, and by extension - us.

Buckingham palace and Windsor are already owned by the public, they are Crown estates.

I'd be angry I think. Apart from the fact that they can't just cancel the Monarchy, it belongs to the UK, not the other way around, it would be the end of thousands of years of legacy. I'd be very unhappy about that.

@Susie477

In that scenario, Harry would become king. Charles can abdicate, and William can abdicate on behalf of himself & his children but they can’t abolish the monarchy. Only Parliament can do that.

Obviously, Harry wouldn’t want to be king (Meghan might have other ideas, though...) so if he (was allowed to) abdicate, we would be left with....

King Andrew The First

Harry is quiet far down the line of succession and wouldn't become king

As others have said, the choice to end the monarchy is not one that Charles and William can make

William can abdicate on behalf of himself & his children

I don't think that!/ correct.

Edward VIII did that but, crucially, no DC had been born at the time he said that, and it was making it clear that if any were born of his impending marriage, they would not join the line of succession

No-one has ever abdicated on behalf of another person who is living even when that person is a minor

You do realise that if Charles and William decided they didn't want to become King, then you'd have King George instead?

It really doesn't work the way you think it would. And even if there was some way to ensure that no descendant of Charles became monarch, all that would do is give us King Andrew instead. And nobody fucking wants that, not even royalists.

Delight. I think it’s the best idea.

Have read some things past few weeks along these lines often mentions 'queen has dedicated her life...' but so have Charles & William neither King yet but it has been their lives and will continue to be. So maybe Harry could have phrased it as ' they have & will dedicate their lives' and had same meaning as 'are trapped'

Won't happen.

But whoever said BP would be sold off. Not.

Look at Palace of Versailles... one of the highest tourist attractions in Europe. 10 million visitors a year. No one lives there

@Roussette

Won't happen.

But whoever said BP would be sold off. Not.

Look at Palace of Versailles... one of the highest tourist attractions in Europe. 10 million visitors a year. No one lives there

No, I'm pretty sure it will never happen. Just doing a "what if".

I don't think the nation would be better off with a non-political President, and civil servants administering the Duchies of Cornwall, Lancaster etc.

And, as a historian, I do love an anachronism

Yes. I get what you're saying.

Just won't be what will happen, I don't think, not in my lifetime certainly, nor in my adult DC's lifetime.

But.... there has to be change big time I think. Hope that is what will happen in my lifetime

It would be joyous

We need a monarch to approve the legal changes to remove the monarchy. Under the legal system each bill approved by Parliament has to receive royal accent. No monarch means that Parliament can’t have bills accepted.

Of course, if King Charles asked his ministers to progress a bill which would replace the monarchy with president elected under x terms, it could probably be done. But if he just abdicated then we would just run through the line of succession that goes a long way until someone was found who didn’t abdicate (probably Andrew).

But if he just abdicated then we would just run through the line of succession that goes a long way until someone was found who didn’t abdicate (probably Andrew)

Disagree, we would have King George VII, as he will be unable to abdicate until he is of age. Who would stand as Regent should follow the adult line of succession, though those individuals could decline to take the role. I think it's reasonably likely that the first two would not take the role (Prince Harry because he has quit, Duke of York because unacceptable and I think even he would grasp that and remove himself) so it would be Princess Beatrice

Well they stole the kohinoor diamond for a start, so not even their Crown Jewels should be kept in the family.

They can both individually abdicate, but they cannot end the monarchy

Correct, because that would need an Act of Parliament - and there won't be one (at least not yet) because there's not enough public demand for it

A depressing thought for a republican, admittedly, but like the House of Windsor itself it's a long game and some of us have hopes for the future

Oh far prefer a royal family than a voted for president or whatever.

The lack of understanding of the general public behind major decision making in this country is just ludicrous, aided by the national media and SM.

I'm thinking Brexit, I'm thinking areas of the North who are voting in the Tories because their local council is labour and has made cuts.....some education and understanding before voting is so important.

Why is Harry chatting to the press again? I'm thought he hated them?