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.

If only people would enlighten themselves as to the difference between a President with Executive powers like Trump, and a titular HOS like Higgins in Ireland.

Go on, read all about it.

The RF is going nowhere until people either rise up or become indifferent. I can see the RF having to TikTok their way through their engagements for the next generation. I don't think reverence will be much in evidence from today's youth when the time comes. Unless the RF become "influencers" and have a huge SM presence. Or something like that.

Money left over as surplus goes into a special account managed by the government and if the surplus gets too high then the Sovereign Grant will be reduced the following year.

Do correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it, the SG never gets reduced (courtesy of John Major).

This doesn't take into account the extra SG for BP renovations.

Not everyone does. Not all of them are. Not everyone who criticises the royal family is a republican.

However - we've all been on these boards long enough to see the patterns of those who violently defend the Sussexes (no matter what weird or inappropriate stuff they do) and at the same time say the most awful things about the Waleses.

And those who are so anti the monarchy that absolutely everything about the royal family and their movements drives them crazy.

It's just a handful of posters (some of whom name change a lot)

I was just explaining why I sometimes jump in to defend K&W - it's not I particularly fangirl them but I can't help responding to some of the awful and batshit things that are said about them.

It's odd how when contenders for an elected president are mentioned by Republicans, David Attenborough'name always comes up. Sir David is 98. So if Charles is too old at 76, why is David Attenborough a contender at 98? Although I think he'd be far to sensible to want the role.

'Exactly! We've had Jimmy Savile and Carrie Johnson! Blimey!'

That's the thing though, you couldn't say either of them wouldn't be contenders - Savile was incredibly popular in the 70s and 80s, raised huge sums for charity, the AntnDec of his day. If we'd been looking for a president in 1980, Savile would have been right up there.

wordler have there been awful and batshit things said on this thread? I think there has been genuine criticism that isn't personal, which is prevelant on other threads

You mean like Donald Trump?

It's always David Attenborough, Joanna Lumley and the like. Posh, white people to replace other posh, white people.

But who gets to decide what type of system we have? If the people decide, they may decide on a president with executive powers. Once you start messing with the system, it’s quite easy to start cocking things up and things don’t go as you want or expect. Look at Brexit for example. This is one of the reasons I like having a constitutional monarchy, why fix something that isn’t broken?

I don’t trust the general public. That’s how we end up with the likes of Trump, Johnson and Burlosconi.

I don't agree. I can think of many who aren't 'posh white people'

You choose to see that.

You have literally said that Carrie Johnson would not be elected as head of state. How can you possibly know this unless you have a set of criteria in mind?

Oh that makes the thread a bit disappointing and redundant.

It’s not going to end.

Your posts are deliberately provocative. Why don't you tell me why she would be elected instead.

Weird and inappropriate according to who? You? Some other poster on here?

For example If you find a couple holding hands weird, nauseating fine but other people don't. I see lots of couples holding hands whrn I am out and about, I don't find it weird or inappropriate. Just because other people don't agree thayvwhat you think is weird or inappropriate doesn't make them a Sussex squad member. It makes them someone who simply doesn't share the same view.

I need to bookmark this as I have countered this many times on this board.

It's not true that the SG cannot be reduced.

It's a misconception about how the SG is generated.

The SG is a calculated as a percentage of the Crown Estate profits. Currently 25 percent of the profit for the financial year two years previously. But that's the higher amount to deal with the BP upgrades, before that it was 15 percent.

What you are referring to is that if the Crown profits have gone down in the reference year (so the percentage would lead to a smaller amount) then the amount given is set at the same level as the previous year. To prevent a shortfall for expected expenditure.

However...

If the whole of the Sovereign Grant is not spent in a given year, the surplus is paid into a Reserve Fund, controlled by the Royal Trustees (the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse).

The amount that may accumulate in the Reserve Fund is capped. This gives the Royal Trustees the power to set a lower level of Sovereign Grant than the formula would otherwise generate.

So there are a couple of ways the SG can be reduced. The formula which provides the percentage is reviewed every few years. The percentage is set by the royal trustees and can be reduced or increased. And if the SG is not being used (ie fewer royal engagements) and the reserve fund fills up to the cap, then that would definitely trigger a reduction.

Not this thread. This board - the royal board in general.

I was making a specific reply to the poster who asked why there are some people who defend Kate and William and why those posters like them so much.

I was saying why I occasionally post in defense of their projects, when I find the criticisms unfair and made not in good faith by posters who either want to just hate on everything they do because they are royal, or everything they do because they are Kate and William.

Thank you wordler. I am not sure either of us are wrong actually.

It is all to do with formula and it cannot be reduced from year to year

I still wonder how it can increase by £45million in 2025 when there are less Royals working.

Not this thread. This board - the royal board in general.

Thanks. I thought this thread wasn't disparaging and personal as such about kate and william

What on earth are you talking about? What have I said about people holding hands?

I'm talking about the Sussex squad led attacks on the Waleses and sometimes Charles and Camilla - they often come with specific copy and talking points directly from Twitter that you can (at the time) cross reference with awful stuff posted on there by posters with all the Sussex squad tags in their user names etc.

Also the posters who blindly praise everything the Sussexes do without being able to acknowledge some of the really awful things they have done like the Ulvade trip.

I have criticised certain actions by certain Royal family members. But I think they simply weaken the institution, they do not put it under real threat.
But the end will come. It will be precipitated by growing indifference on a weakened institution, and the a crisis that brings about its end.

But wordler you said it's not on this thread so why muddy the waters with this?

If this turns into a harry and meghan aren't they awful thread I'm off.

It has been an interesting discussion up until now and I thank @JoyousGreyOrca for starting it. Not everyone's views are the same but surely we can discuss

Yes, on a year to year basis it's to prevent a shortfall but it's easily assessed and reduced if the government want to if profits start to go down.

Property maintenance seems to be over half of the expenditure for the last two years.

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2024-07/Sovereign%20Grant%20Report%202023-24.pdf

I support a constitutional monarchy . But I am conservative with a small c. I do think there is a value to the soft diplomacy the WRF can do with other HoS & bring attention to charities etc , and a sense of continuity ( don't ask me to do a time and motion KPI thing because I can't ) It's a feeling I have and so if polled ( which I never have been ) I would tick In Favour of a Constitutional Monarchy.

That said I do think there needs to be scrutiny , particularly about finances. So one thing I would like to be looked into is the Monarch being able to pass down money assets to the heir without paying Inheritance Tax. ( I think I am right that is the case - someone will tell me if not ) . So I am not a rabid Royalist but something akin to I think Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of Government - except for all the other ones. "( paraphrasing from memory ) But as I say I am conservative with a small c & I know I am.

Catching up and this is an excellent point. Apparently they also take every school holiday off in full. Private school so lovely extra weeks to luxuriate in too.

Willy's stated intention is to reduce his charitable patronages to focus on his own projects. Earthshot's laudable of course but why and how does it spend so very many millions over the headline £5m handed out in grant? Where is the rest going? Take a look at its annual report and you'll find a lot of puff smooth talking but not a lot of fine detail.

TBF from recent revelations he's a workaholic when it comes to maximising his income from his feudal duchy but I don't think that really counts.

Because a poster on this thread asked for reasons why some people support the Waleses - it was a specific reply to that.

I'm not particularly anti the Sussexes in general. I have expressed before that I hoped Meghan's new programme would be a success so that they could be secure in a new direction. I do think they have made some terrible decisions and done some things they deserve to be criticised for, don't you?

But you originally brought up the Sussex Squad in one of your posts. Up until then they hadn't been mentioned.