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.

But at some point you are going to have to provide the estimated costs of your alternative

I really don't think a random on t'internet (i.e. me) has to provide estimated costs of a republic.

I also don't feel the need to persuade you. You either feel it or you don't.

You either feel it or you don't.

That's about as clear as Brexit.

Funny how all the republicans are so convinced Saville or someone of his ilk wouldn’t get near the Presidency, sorry it doesn’t fit your republican utopia. We all know the Saville story, how close he was to Thatcher, prominent Judges and had the Force in his back pocket to name but a few. To pretend he wouldn’t get near the Presidency is laughable, in the eighties he would have been a shoe in, but if you republicans want to console yourselves with the notion it would be someone nice, warm and cuddly like David Attenborough, Dawn French or Joanna Lumley, go ahead if it makes you feel better but we all know what type of person wants to be a President and it certainly isn’t them.

How can it be a moot point when the very subject we are discussing is about the constitutional monarchy ending and the UK becoming a republic? You may as well contact MNHQ and ask for the thread to be removed as the whole thread is a ‘moot point’. Funny isn’t it when we get to the nitty gritty of who could actually be our new Head of State it’s look the other way, nothing to here. Of course this new republican eutopia will be led by someone of great moral character, an upstanding citizen whose only interest is the welfare of their countrymen and women, someone like the lovely Justin Welby perhaps? 🤔

When you have the likes of Sarkozy, Burlosconi, Trump and Johnson voted democratically into power, it makes me more comfortable having a constitutional monarchy.

Absolutely agree, and don’t get me started on the Macrons.

Savile is very much a mooot point in that I think his 'open secret' proclivities would have seen a virtual assassination in much the same way we see SM rep. killings now

Maybe we can put Fred and his paedo pals, cash for honours, cash in carriers and charity skimming into a virtual presidential mix and see how it goes 😎

they are a buffer zone, the Monarch is Head of State, keeping Parliament and Forces in order, a popular tourist attraction, Host foreign leaders & dignitaries,
stuff like that…

@Ang3leyes They do nothing except grab money and honours for themselves.

What is it that you imagine they are a ‘buffer’ against?

Yeah, they are completely irrelevant...

And yet Charles' coronation was the most watched television broadcast of 2023, and attracted a global audience of two billion people across 125 countries.

It's normal for the most vocal people are the anti-royalists. Most people I know either support them, or are quietly indifferent and are happy with the status quo.

Funnily enough, William being unwilling to unwilling to go on lengthy foreign visits while Catherine was ill was completely in tune with the attitudes of younger people in Britain these days, who believe you shouldn't have to sell your soul to your employer. He was praised by many for his stance!

Yes of course you are right, nothing to see here.

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/10/jimmy-savile-government-monarchy-police-thatcher

But Prince Andrew got near the Head of State. He could have been born first.
And Charles has had a number of friends who are paedophiles.
And we had George the Nazi as King who could only be stood down because he had an affair.

Speaking of inconsistencies : William and Kate,lived together in St Andrews Scotland, Anglesey, Wales, Nott Cott then moved into an apartment at KP when married, presented with lovely Anmer Hall in Norfolk,then moved to small Adelaide Cottage
in Windsor. Did I miss one out?
Where is William’s office? or Kate’s?

I think William will be a terrible king, part of his appeal is the very photogenic kids he wheels out for publicity and they will be grown up in 15 years or so.

He seems lazy and disinterested, in a recent interview he said he was not looking forward to some extra responsibilities he had taken on.

He will, however, have all of the advisors and PR machine behind the scenes to help him keep going.

There's no way that the monarchy will be abolished in Charle; 's lifetime, so I hope William is our last king.

"The King's Coronation was watched by an average of 18 million viewers in the UK, overnight figures have shown.
The ceremony, which saw the King and Queen Camilla crowned, was broadcast simultaneously across a range of channels between 11:00 and 13:00 BST.
Viewing peaked at 20.4 million as the King was crowned just after midday, audience measurement group Barb said.
The figures are smaller than when an average of 26.5 million viewers tuned in for Queen Elizabeth II's funeral.
An average of 18.8 million people tuned into watch the Coronation across 11 channels and services, including BBC One, Two, ITV and Sky News."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65518360

But Prince Andrew got near the Head of State. He could have been born first.
And Charles has had a number of friends who are paedophiles.
And we had George the Nazi as King who could only be stood down because he had an affair.

Or Edward could have been born first and him and Sophie would have been King and Queen now, or Princess Anne would be Queen now if born first 🤷🏻‍♀️We can all bring up the bad apples on both sides of the debate as I have on who could be our Head of State either by virtue of birth or relying on the great British public voting in their latest ‘National Treasure’, personally I would rather take the risk that Prince George is being trained and guided from birth rather than a fame and power hungry narcissist putting themselves forward for the position with no doubt shady financial backers getting them into office.

@BigWillyLittleTodger The point with a hereditary monarch is you take what you get. Good or bad. It is not a meritocracy.

The thought of George being trained from birth makes me feel quite queasy. Poor thing.

To repeat my last point I would rather take my chance with the status quo (and no that doesn’t mean I want Francis Rossi as President of the UK)

But Francis would rock us all over the world

😂😂😂 I like it, I like it, I la la la like it! 😂😂😂

Reuters claims 2 billion viewers in over 125 countries, as per @LlamaDrama20’s post, whereas your source was just UK viewing figures

Yep, but that's very different to us getting rid. The fact that these people have tolerated a foreign hereditary state for the past 50 years suggests that people are pretty ambivalent. Would you rather have Charles or Trump?

Can you provide a link to the Reuters post?