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.

LOL! 😂

Sounds like you've cooked up quite the fantasy there @JoyousGreyOrca 😂

Ain't gonna happen. The Royal family are going NOWHERE. 😎 And certainly not within 'the next generation.' You know a generation is around 20 years right? Are you getting 'generation' confused with 'century?' Even so, they won't be gone by the year 2100 either.

They're here to stay in the UK. Sorry and all that. 😢

Oh, and as some others have said, you DO sound like a Harry and Meghan fangirl. 😆

This is the front cover of Hello Canada. ‘Faces of the Future’. Again, this is very telling considering that Invictus Games are being held in Canada this year. I think people are expecting the Royal Family to continue on for quite a while.

www.instagram.com/hellocanadamag/p/DGBbR5pTN9m/?hl=en

Had the Queen retired at 70 then Charles would have been able to implement changes, streamline the Monarchy as he always said he would.
HM was averse to change.
Charles would then retire at 70 forcing William to step up. We know this.
So now we have an elderly couple, set in their ways, an unpopularQueen Consort
and William kicking his heels.

The thing is though that none of the things the RF do are necessary or important.

I agree on the whole although we would need some sort of meet and greet figurehead to host foreign dignitaries and represent the UK abroad which is where an elected, accountable HOS would step in for the four or five years of their term.

You are so right. I think QE2 did a great disservice in not stepping down. Charles would have been 48 if QE2 had abidcated at 70. He would have had a good 20 years at the big job and then could have enjoyed his retirement at 70 at the place he loves, Highgrove. William could have taken over and there would be life breathed into the antiquated system. With change comes opportunity... isn't there a saying 'when in doubt, choose change'

I refer you to my previous posts - it's the commitment, the duty that will never end until he dies. It's not the 'hard graft' or otherwise - and I'm sure we only see the tip of the iceberg, but the whole restrictive need to behave impeccably, never put a foot wrong, say the right things all the time in serious situations with no retirement in sight.

As I said before - I'm a constitutional monarchist and I want the RF to continue in a Scandinavian sort of way, which I think will be the case when KC dies. And maybe William will emulate Q Beatrix of the Netherlands in abdicating when he's 65 in favour of George, who will perhaps be happier to take it on if he knows it's not for ever. And the palace/castle quotient to be reduced proportionately.

Yes thousands work within the Monarchy, maybe it needs a cull because it is not there to provide jobs for people

But why not? People need jobs and royal jobs are often nice jobs, and frequently in areas where there aren't many other options for employment - especially in the countryside.

I'm always protesting to shop managers etc about the machines taking over form humans in retail and in banks. We don't know what lies ahead when AI really starts to bite - so personally I'm very pleased to think that the RF will employ gardeners, house-keepers, foresters, estate managers, crown polishers, jewellers, tailors/embroiderers, cooks, conservators, stable lads/lassies, farm workers, ghillies, guardsmen, musicians and especially those funny men who look like playing cards...Garter King at Arms, or whatever they're called.

Bring it on and keep it real, I say.

Oh, and the man who plays the bagpipes to wake up Charles of a morning. So worthwhile!

I actually really like that Charles restored the Official Harpist of the Prince of Wales in order to encourage young musical talent in Wales and raise the profile of harpists in general.

Most definitely!😃

If only we had more jobs like that, not less, the world would be a better place.

I'm sure the bagpipe player thinks it's worth his while, since it is a skilled (a rare skill) job for which he is being paid. I can think of dozens if not hundreds of jobs that have no moral or social value. They are still peoples' jobs. Practicing and preserving skills for future generations so they do not die out is no more or less worthwhile than standing around in Primark, selling cheap clothes made by children that will end up in landfill. Scoring points against ordinary working people to attack the RF is as cheap as your non available costings for a republic. .

On a more serious note, the conservationists and gardeners employed by the RF are often -like those in museums and the NT - preserving the historic material heritage. These 3 are the main employers of such people. They aren't paid well (I've got friends who do these jobs) but the job satisfaction and working conditions are sky-high.

We'd have to pay anyway to keep up the palaces and castles and their contents, even if we ditched the royals.

But my question is...would we? Would people want to fund this work? I think it's important because man/woman cannot live by bread alone - we need beautiful buildings, countryside and gardens etc to enhance all our lives. We don't need to actually live in them to benefit from their preservation.

I understand why some people object to the monarchy, but simple resentment of their perceived wealth (it's not theirs personally - it belongs to that abstract entity, 'The Crown') and privilege is something I don't get.

Doesn’t one of Charles’ foundations support the younger generation in craft and heritage skill too? It’s a dying art and if we want to maintain our beautiful historical pieces and buildings we need to pass that skill on.

Oooh I hit a nerve there!

Sorry I can't oblige with a full set out costing for a Republic. You really do expect too much of me, when it would take constitutional scholars and experts at least a decade to unravel centuries of a monarchy and put together costings. I'm not that clever, sorry.

I don't believe I am scoring points against ordinary working people but you think what you like!

Personally I think the financial arguments are not the point. None of us can cost conversion to, or the running of, a republic, and as we know, there are all kinds of figures bandied around for the cost of the monarchy because it depends on all kinds of things being included or not. And it depends who you ask!

It comes down to what we want as a nation and what works best for our form of government. I think people are right to say that our system has been designed as a constitutional monarchy and changing that wouldn't be as simple as some think - it's not just a matter of turning the RF out and opening the palaces as tourist attractions.

I want the monarchy to continue but in a modified and more modest form. But I still want the horses and carriages and the state occasions/visits. I don't think it's really the cost of this kind of thing that people object to, if they're honest - it's a principle (a misguided one, I think!). It tends to be people who believe that such a thing as an equal society is possible, or that getting rid of the monarchy would somehow immediately improve all our lives. I don't get that! Do they really think that the cash would be divvied up and we'd all get a tenner?

It'll get stripped down to just the king and queen and their children playing minor roles as in other countries

Sorry, no nerves hit, another republican leap of logic on your part there. It's just another illustration of the lack of thought put into the consequences of a republic by the people who promote it like yourself. Policies that are based on hate and envy, rather than a vision for a better UK.

I am finding your posts quite rude. You will see from what I have said, I know the Monarchy are going nowhere, not for generations. I want a hugely slimmed down sensible Monarchy, I have said that so many times. Yet you keep pushing me for figures for a pretend Republic that is just not going to happen. I have not been promoting it. Because I know it isn't going to happen.

It is not hate and envy, I object to that. I don't hate any of them, I feel desperately sorry for the children, that's all. And I will repeat, as I have said many a time... I want to only see King/Queen, Heir/Spouse and none of the very many hangers on wider family who trade off their royal position.

im sure I saw something about that of country file.

Why do we need a King for Charles to do that? Are you saying if they are not Royal, they would do zero charitable work?

We fund this for the National Trust which owns lots of historic houses. The key is they could not lie empty only to be used by visiting Royals, but would have daily visitors, a playground and cafe in the grounds, etc.

I'm pretty sure it's at Dumferline House.

Plus he held an event at Highgrove recently that involved a lot of young people who were learning crafts so maybe it's a national programme?

I mean, is the prime minister doing that? Any of our politicians? Maybe they are. But I distinctly remember seeing that his foundation was helping encourage younger people to learn these dying skills. I think it was on Repair Shop or something similar.

Where did you get the idea that if they are not royal they would do zero charitable work? Loads of aristos do charitable work. I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at here 🤷🏻‍♀️

Charles Foundation gave money to a national charity that works to save traditional crafts and teach them. But it is an independent charity.