52% of 18-24 year olds want monarchy abolished

[babsanderson]

This was in a yougov poll. Support for the monarchy is at an all time low amongst younger people.

@Sugarfree23
« He absolutely expected someone else to be picking up the security bill. Either the US tax payer as an International Protected Person or the UK tax payer via the RF. »

Where is the information he asked the bill for security to continue to be paid once he and M stepped back from royal duties?

You don’t need to provide sources for the rest of your post, as that’s obvious…

You are partially right about the politicians they won't expend political capital on it nor should they but they can tinker around the edges of funding and accountability. The plan if there is one is to get them to abdicate by their own hands as it's no longer worth being in a continuous firing line for no upside and considerable downsides.Harry has cracked open the edifice in a way no one could have predicted but cracked it he has. It certainly wouldn't be Brexit x 10000 or whatever - that has done irreparable damage to our country,economy and freedoms. Our children are literally our future and most see nothing in the BRF that rocks their boat or addresses the many issues thay are facing.

Harry should come to Glastonbury he would be cheered like no other since Jeremy Corbyn !

Where is the information he asked the bill for security to continue to be paid once he and M stepped back from royal duties?

He expected that it would always be paid. He was shocked when he was told protection would stop.

From his book...
When Meghan asked him one night whether their protection would ever be removed, Harry tells her: “Never. Not in this climate of hate. And not after what happened to my mother."

From GMA interview...
Harry said, "I was stunned that my family would allow security to be taken away, especially at the most vulnerable point for us."

It’s all the woke brain washing they get now, white privilege, etc instead of actual education.

And yet over 50% of young people have a degree….

I’m 59, l want them abolished too. I have an MA

'And yet over 50% of young people have a degree….'

Yup, and their lack of 'general' knowledge is terrifying.

You are partially right about the politicians they won't expend political capital on it nor should they but they can tinker around the edges of funding and accountability. The plan if there is one is to get them to abdicate by their own hands as it's no longer worth being in a continuous firing line for no upside and considerable downsides.

I take it you are not a constitutional lawyer @vera99 - the above is not ‘a plan’ as it bears no relation the role of the Sovereign in parliament. A monarch can abdicate but it will pass to his or her successors. The RF cannot abdicate en mass.

What would be required would involve a total overhaul of our political arrangements. It would be colossal. There is zero appetite for it.

There is no option for quietly bullying them out as you suggest. This is why support among the young (and less knowledgeable) is lower. They don’t understand they’d have to replace it with something.

Maybe the cap doffing attitude you see amongst some on MN who think the Royals are better than them, is rightly dying a death on MN.

I meant - rightly dying a death amongst the young.

I never saw anyone doff a cap. Who does that these days? You're not even expected to curtsey or bow.

Maybe the cap doffing attitude you see amongst some on MN who think the Royals are better than them

Got no answer to valid well-reasoned points? Try insulting the people who make them 🤷‍♀️

Nor me. Never seen anyone bow and scrape either. Or tug their forelock. I don’t think they’re better than me either. None of which has anything to do with being happy with a constitutional monarchy.

What reasoned points?
I actually agree politicians do not currently have the band width to focus on abolishing the monarchy. We have enormous economic issues. But I don't see support for the Monarchy increasing with the current incumbents.
I am guessing they hope George, Charlotte and Louis will turn around public support.

If my dad was a paedophile (or at the very least, a paedophile sympathiser) it would be an incredibly easy decision to go no contact.

I’m mid 30s and I can think of one person in my network who is pro monarchy, the rest think it’s bollocks.

I think going no contact is not that easy. If you were a member of the Royal Family and went no contact with Andrew, it would probably mean being shut off by other family members in return, and would mean never going to any family gatherings. It is why it is more common for people to go low contact instead.

Effectively if the Windsors became progressively less popular and maybe a proportion of the population openly antagonistic one could imagine a family meeting when they decide they no longer want to fulfill that role. I would imagine if that was to transpire the King and his direct heir would communicate that will to the PM and Parliament would 'reluctantly' accept that position.

No doubt a Royal Commission would be set up to examine a peaceful and progressive transition from a constitutional monarchy to a constitutional republic. My view is the final monarch should become the first President say for a period of 3-5 years and can play a pivotal role in passing the baton to an elected ,accountable Head of State decided by the people for the people.

The world will applaud the very British way of evolution not revolution and Charles' popularity will soar and we will wonder why we ever wanted to get rid of them in the first place.....

Task No 1 a new National Anthem to replace that dirge.....2. The Presidential Seal and 3 Cut and paste (Clav will be useful for that) for all legislation.

Anyway that's my dream....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom

P.S we finally have a use for Liz Truss to help head up that Royal Commission

I’m mid 30s and I can think of one person in my network who is pro monarchy, the rest think it’s bollocks.

Maybe, but the practical truth is you would need to replace the monarchy with something else. Your network might also think President Truss/Sunak/Johnson/Starmer living in Buckingham Palace was bollocks too.

The monarchy is what we’ve got and it has led to a very stable democracy when viewed across generations .No one with a grasp of history is going to argue otherwise. And no one with a grasp of the constitution is going to pretend that abolishing the monarchy would be anything other than highly divisive and disruptive. It would be a huge huge huge endeavour for … a President? The effort would not be worth the outcome.

You can have as many polls as you like, the monarchy aren't going anywhere anytime soon!

I'm realizing when I use the insufferable 18 year old Liz Truss ranting I've lost the argument. Pretend that didn't happen.....

The Windsors deciding not to be Royal because people are bullying them? Is that your plan @vera99 ? ‘Open hostile’ meaning… they fear for their lives?

That is not going to work. People are too decent to allow that.

Your whole post seems naive/spiteful and a huge waste of time. Just hating on Royals will not make the family go away. Outright abuse of them is likely to increase support.

Thanks

I could see articles where he was asking if he could pay for help with security, but did not know that he hoped his family would support his need for security - which he clearly needed even prior documentaries and his book.

He does remain a member of the RF even if he’s stripped of his titles and royal duties. His dad not appearing to support him with security costs even prior book etc does fit into his narrative of being the « Spare »

Do you think he picked up the phone to his dad and said - look there’s helicopters over head, photographers in my garden etc Help me?

He clearly didn’t get the help with costs that we know of - so hence book etc to earn some
money- which may actually increase their risks.

It is a strange family….

Already Tom Bowyer is bullying the King and telling him in no uncertain terms that rolling over for Harry is a dereliction of his constitutional duties as the monarch. He should be the King before he is a father. Others in the establishment are also parroting this line , they are doing the bullying. The Queen got that she would sacrifice family for duty - Princess Margaret being an early example and her shunning of Camilla for years as she expressed her disapproval of her son's actions. At some point the 'Heir of Sorrows' might indeed think enough is enough - his love for Harry trumps all , and if some of the rumours about Camilla are true it might not just be his son he fears losing.

No one not least me wishes any harm to come to them , indeed KC seems like a decent bloke and head and shoulders above sad excuses for a human being such as Boris Johnson.

There are many members of the RF who don't get security though. Why are they any less important than Harry. You'll probably say that they receive more press attention than say Beatrice or Zara but that's mainly down to their own actions.

Harry also went through a period of wanting British police security - on US soil

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11638381/TOM-BOWER-No-one-knows-better-Charles-Prince-Harry-barely-scratched-surface.html

At a recent private dinner for friends hosted by Charles and Camilla at Clarence House, the King’s guests were taken aback by his obvious reluctance to confront his son Harry over his disloyalty.

In the face of multiple smears, indiscretions and provocations, Charles betrayed one of his cardinal weaknesses: a constitutional unwillingness to confront personal problems head-on.

Rather than fight for an important principle, Charles disclosed to his guests, he preferred to shy away from a bitter battle.

vera99 · Today 11:31

Already Tom Bowyer is bullying the King and telling him in no uncertain terms that rolling over for Harry is a dereliction of his constitutional duties as the monarch

I don't believe TB is saying KC is failing in his constitutional duties. Look again at what he wrote:
In the face of multiple smears, indiscretions and provocations, Charles betrayed one of his cardinal weaknesses: a constitutional unwillingness to confront personal problems head-on
He's referring to KC'S personal 'constitution' I.e. his own personality and way he's made.