How will the Royal Family end?

[JoyousGreyOrca]

The Royal Family will end. Not yet obviously. But within the next generation.

People often assume institutions like this fall slowly and gradually. We see a bit of that already happening with the reduction in "working" Royals, far less favourable poll results than when Queen Elizabeth reigned, and the willingness of the media to be more critical of the Royal Family.

I have seen people commenting assuming this means the Royal family will end soon. I think they misunderstand what is happening.

But society is changing and the deference that Queen Elizabeth attracted can no longer be taken for granted. Colonies are no longer happy for the Royals to carry out cosplay colonial tours on their soil, and increasingly they will remove the King as their Head of State. But I think when the end comes it will be sudden and unexpected. Similar to the fall of the Soviet Union. A clear weakening of the institution, but then a sudden, and shocking fall.

The aftermath will be very messy though as the Royal family try and fight for as much of the states wealth as they can, using the courts if they need to.

Ireland has an apolitical, ceremonial HoS, but yes, maybe people will think it isn't worth the bother when you can have one family providing one.

Excellent point.

So you think that a Monarchy that costs 15 times more than another Monarchy within Europe per year is worth it.

I don't.
And we don't even know the true cost of the Monarchy anyway. The cost of security which will be in the hundreds of millions is hidden from the public

Difference is... he could have been got rid of.

What if we had this sort of situation as a Monarch? We're helpless

I've said for a long time I think they missed a trick in not walking off into the sunset when TLQ died.

We now have various unedifying spectacles on the go, a monarch whose take from the public purse increases with monotonous regularity, minor figures being wheeled on to plug gaps, in-fighting like rats in a sack and both monarch and lazy heir skimming the public purse unashamedly all in the space of a mere two years.

As always I hope Willy will be our last 'king'.

Ok, so George married Lady Ernestine of Lambeth at a cost of 10 million because she wanted the live doves gold plated.

The streets are empty as the impoverished public refuse to attend the wedding. The newspaper headlines are unanimously angered.

What do you think happens next to end the monarchy?

Do you mean the Govt will order a public vote? People will storm the gates and kill them all? Wills will throw up his hands and say "fine, I quit!!" and send the three kids down to Asda to get a job?

His wedding etc might be the final straw but you're quite on actually how it'll end

No, where did I say that? Again, this is the sort of off putting discourse in response to perfectly reasonable questions that does republicans no favours. If your goal is reducing the costs of our monarchy, then looking at the costs of other monarchies is fair enough. But the cost of other monarchies is wholly irrelevant to the question of our monarchy versus a republic.

'What do you think happens next to end the monarchy? Do you mean the Govt will order a public vote?'

This is exactly what will happen. The demographic of our country is ever-changing, we all know that. At some point the majority of MPs and their constituents will want a Republic and there will be a referendum.

You've missed Andrew's shenanigans with chinese spy and the dutch company and pitch at palace murky deals.

Why on earth would the alternative to a series of expensive unelected anachronisms based on a bloodline be Trump? Do you not understand the difference between the US government and the UK?

Thank you. Yes it is fair enough to look at our wholly extravagent Monarchy compared to other European monarchies. As far as a Republic you really cannot expect me to state as fact the costs for that.

I do find on these royal threads that those in support of our Monarchy always always want facts and figures for something that isn't happening when we all know it would take years to put something together that will replace our Monarchy and give costs.

It will be one step at a time if it ever happens. Which I think won't be for a couple of generations.

Why wouldn’t it be? is more the point.

The republicans went ballistic, saying it would never be allowed to happen, yes without any irony at all! That’s the whole point of a republic! The cognitive dissonance was a sight to behold.

I think what was said was he wouldn't be allowed to get within sniffing distance of a presidency and I still think that.

No need to stop him running. There was more than enough officially in the public domain in his own words (leaving aside what we're often assured here was the general public feeling there was something 'off' about him) to ensure a thorough torpedoing of any campaign he might have mounted and there undoubtedly would have been on off scene helping hand spotlighting them as those who delayed his knighthood for a decade showed.

Keep telling yourself that @CathyorClaire if it makes you feel better.

Yes people are totting up engagements. They then publish them. The Wales family, even well before Kates illness was significantly lower than far older members. They barely make 200 engagements, and their engagements are made up of far more things like going to sports events, concerts, theatres etc. The whole point of them is that they are seen and highlight causes. They cannot demand government spending, they can't be political. If they are not doing anything visibly there is no point to them doing it. Charles, to his credit I think understands this. He is better at highlighting others and not making everything about himself. The Princes Trust is excellent and has tangible benefits that can be seen 40 years later. I don't see any evidence that William will be a good King. But good Monarchs don't force change. Bad Monarchs do, snd if his laziness leads to a serious slimming down of the Monarchy ( I think really we don't need more than Monarch/Spouse, heir/ spouse then that's a good thing.

I was putting them under the umbrella of 'unedifying spectacles' but yes.

Glaring examples just like accepting bundles of cash in carriers when you're a future monarch although thankfully we're assured there's nothing to see in that one.

That’s ok then! Only 4 plus years of Saville being Head of State, what possibly could go wrong?

What could possibly have gone wrong if the hapless Wallis Simpson hadn't turned up to save all our bacon and rescued us from Nazi traitor Edward viii? Or King Andrew? Or King Harry, for a lot longer than 4 years!

As a PP said, the chances of him being voted into this position is beyond remote. And it will be written into the new Constitution that anyone can be removed.

We can't say that with a Monarch can we?

Well as (obviously) we're never going to know and (more importantly) apparently never even have the opportunity to vote on a wrong 'un it seems a bit of a moot point.

You might think that but you don't know that . Are you Baba Vanga?

"His work ethic is totally lacking and having a glamorous wife won't be enough "

Got confused with Garry there for a bit !

@Sallyslider653 where did I say this thread should not stand ?

Prithee tell me fair maid.

It's a shame that all you took from that post was a wrong impression. Hey nonny nonny ...

Well the relative cost of other RFs might be persuasive on a superficial level if you want to persuade people in the UK that having the RF we have is too expensive. But at some point you are going to have to provide the estimated costs of your alternative. Simply saying "nobody knows" isn't really good enough, is it? And you can't refute the costs of general elections every 5 years (which I assume you will want for a president), because we have those costings. You also can do a reasonable estimate of the other presidential costs I have cited based on what it already costs us for our current head of state. So, unless you are prepared to answer someone presenting you with those costs estimates, and asking you to explain how, from a monetary point of view, a republic is better for the UK, you aren't going to be persuasive.

One thing I do think would be a very slippery slope is abdications. (OK I know we got over Edward VIII ) but I mean more - current Monarch choosing to hand over to the next in line when they'd had enough. That's not the point of a Constitutional monarchy IMHO. Personally I would hate to take on a job with no prospect of retirement.