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.

I’m a Republican but I partly agree with this view.

While we have a RF, I certainly think the Princess of Wales should be allowed time to focus on the children, especially having been so ill. Presumably it benefits the country if the future monarch grow up in a stable home?

I also think there is far more work that goes on in the background when they make visits; and we only see the final result as it were.

However, I don’t feel it was a great choice in terms of PR for William to step back quite so radically when Catherine was ill, because he does have staff to step in. I think he may have lost a lot of points with people who are experiencing chemotherapy who have no such resources, who have to carry on working themselves, or their spouses do. But I don’t blame him for taking that action when it was available to him.

The other caveat I have for William is I think it’s quite difficult energy-wise to power up in your fifties and sixties if you haven’t been working flat out in your thirties and forties.

He may be working flat out on Duchy of Cornwall business though? Who knows how involved he is on a day to day level? The duchy comprising of land, properties and investments, covering approximately 130,000 acres across 23 counties, which makes an annual profit of over £20 million, presumably takes a lot of running?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/duchy-of-cornwall-prince-william-channel-4-dispatches-investigation-b1191828.html

The other obvious thing related to the Sovereign Grant is that the Duchies are renting out lands to government institutions eg NHS and the army; and whereas KC and PoW pay income tax on the profits of the Duchies, the Duchies themselves are exempt from business taxes.

So they do not pay corporation tax or capital gains tax, and inheritance tax is not paid when they are passed down the royal line of succession.

So it’s a very profitable “full circle” which seems to guarantee that the King and the PoW retain great personal wealth to a large degree at our expense if they don’t pay the same taxes as us? And that is relevant to the subject of this thread because presumably the wealthier they are; the more influence they have and the more difficult they are to oust?

Incidentally, to branch off a bit, and just out of interest;

the article posted below says that if there is no male heir then the Duchy of Cornwall reverts back to the Monarch. This won’t have affected the late Queen Elizabeth presumably because she inherited the throne so early? Has this rule been changed now we have matrilineal primogeniture?

Does anyone know?

I happened to see several reports yesterday of Charles being out and about and it does seem that he enjoys his role and also people are very happy to see him. He looks relaxed and he very much seems to enjoy meeting people. I was never much of a Charles fan but I think that was partly due to the fact that you didn't see much of him in his role as POW. He seems to have blossomed as king or he is just able to show his abilities better in that way.
I don't understand why people say he is doing more than William and complain about it. He is the King and it is his duty. This was exactly the role he had for years. Older people tend to have years of learned wisdom which are gained on the job but also by the simple fact of age and experience.
I do not claim to know / pretend that I know all the ins and outs of the RF calendar in detail like some posters. I think Charles has done amazingly well since his accession. Times do change and the stiffness of the late Queen albeit tempered somewhat in later years has been replaced by a more approachable monarch.

You want an elected head of state, you will get who you are given by the great British public and you will just have to deal with the fact that it could be some undesirable character who doesn’t fit your republican eutopia

The non-removable, unelected current incumbent isn't a glowing endorsement of the current system and if we can ponder undesirables from forty odd years back it's fair also to ponder the possibility of a King Andrew or a King Henry with the major drawback they could never be removed.

Criticism begets criticism, as you criticise, so will you be criticised, it's the way of the world!
If you post comments and you get a lot of criticism, it just means a lot of people don't agree with you !

Harry is part of the Royal Family, as is Andrew. That is the point. They have created these people. Because they are 'Blood Royals' they have had everything handed to them on a plate since they were born. They have never had anyone say no to them, they have been told they are special beings. Both of them are incredibly ordinary and limited in talent, as are all the Royals, frankly, if you take away the Royal status. They are surrounded by sycophants and enablers, which in Harry's case, left him vulnerable to someone telling him he really was a special boy and had something to offer that wasn't 'Member of the Royal Family' and he has now found out too late that its all he has. Andrew has fallen prey to the worlds criminal Oligarch fraternity, because if there is one thing extremely wealthy people can sniff out its someone too stupid and arrogant to resist any mild flattery and a cheque book to manipulate for their own ends. To be fair, they probably know no better, but the people who fall over themselves to enable them are more at fault, including Parliament. Maybe if they had to justify themselves they would learn the consequences of their actions. The reason why Harry is not relevant to discussions about the institution of the Monarchy is because he is no longer part of it. His line of the Royal family is well and truly over. His children will only be virtual strangers to the family, and will likely never set foot in the UK, unless they turn up anonymously as tourists. The only people keeping them relevant are those who trawl their Instagram pages and their social media to try and find endless things to criticise them about and to be faux outraged about. The reason they get given fake prizes is because those fake prizes were virtually unknown before they gave them out to Harry. Then the whole world is outraged and everyone knows about them, because they gave some plastic plaque to Harry. It has no bearing on the Royal Family if Harry and Meghan swan about Nigeria or wherever, because everyone in the world knows they are completely estranged from the family. Nigeria invites them because they bring publicity, again from the outraged of the World (and possibly to piss off the British). If the outraged weren't taking an interest in every tiny thing they do, no one would give them prizes, and no one would invite them on a fake Royal tour.
Andrew is different as his link to the Royal Family is not over. He still has access to them, his children are still part of the family and are sometimes suggested as people who could 'help' the RF out, despite them being complicit in some of Andrews scandals, innocently wondering how they had millions in their bank accounts and dumbly fluttering their eyelids when a couple of old pervy men turned up to their 18th birthday party and gave them diamond necklaces. As we have seen from the subsequent revelations about him, he is still trying to blag cash from dodgy people. How is he managing to do this? Not because of his winning personality presumably, but because people still believe he has the ear of his family.

there are plenty of other threads to bash H&M. this one is about the Royal family. they left,
PA is relevant as he still live in a royal abode.

@Samcro They still expect people in the US to use titles for them and the kids. The titles are all over their Netflix productions. So as far as I'm concerned, they are still part of the RF.

Harry and Meghan wouldn't have the position, wealth , opportunities and privileges they have if not for their position in the royal family,
We have all been told repeatedly that they are still members of the royal family and that this is Harry's birthright.
They may have left the U.K. and reside in the US , but they are still behaving and using the titles and royal benefits to further their own advantage.

they are not working royals. so not anything to do with this thread.

Andrew is not a working royal either!

@jeffgoldblum If the Royal family was abolished, all their mansions and palaces and the Duchy removed, then they would be in the position of Harry and Meghan. At that point they can do what they want. I would not care if Camilla posted tik tok videos of her drinking gin and throwing Vs at the public.

This is about the institution of the Royal family.

Not sure why you are addressing that comment to me! @JoyousGreyOrca , I have not actually made any comments about the royals actions or your statements about republicans actions! 🤷‍♀️

He benefits greatly from the institution of the Royal family. He is in a mansion where he got a lease way below the market rate. He hid in the palaces to stop a warrant being served on him, because the Royal family has rights to stop anyone entering their palaces, that other citizens do not.

But much as I personally dislike the alleged rapist of a sex trafficked teenager who was also allegedly present during other heinous events, the institution of the Royal family will not end because of him. He does weaken it. And it was only Queen Elizabeth's support of him that led to criticisms of Elizabeth from people I never expected to hear it from.

Charles would have strengthened the Royal family if he had decisively cut him off from the family and all events and removed his title. But I guess Andrew knows where the bodies are buried.

I was responding to your comment here.

@Sallyslider653 I partially agree. I think it was a very bad look that William stopped doing many engagements when his father who has cancer and is getting chemo, continued to do engagements. If Charles did not have an long history of being very busy, I would have thought he was trolling William.

These things though do not individually bring down the Monarchy. As you say they have a lot of wealth and power. But they do chip away at it.

Queen Elizabeth had been around for so long, and although there were some criticisms of some of her actions during her long reign, she commanded a lot of respect. She was known as someone committed to duty and doing the right thing. It did not matter if that was always the case in reality, but that is how people saw her.

We have a fast changing world with the old deference's giving way and a major decline in Christianity in the UK. It is a far more difficult world to navigate the Royal family through, and I simply see no evidence of anyone capable of doing that.

I agree with @jeffgoldblum . He didn't use "Harry Mountbatten-Windsor" in his Polo documentary or his Netflix bio. His visa status has been influenced by his Royal status. No one is calling him Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor as he goes about his day. He's off for another wannabe Royal tour in Ghana.

You are arguing with the wrong poster @JoyousGreyOrca , I don't really give a stuff about any of this , I was simply pointing out that Harry and Meghan are non working royals and Andrew is a non working royal , either non working royals are not relevant to this thread or they are , there is no sliding scale , houses have nothing to do with it!

@JoyousGreyOrca You should actually be arguing with me.

All I'm gping to say is if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

And I would also add @JoyousGreyOrca , I don't agree with any of your comments, but you are free and welcome to post them , I'm also free to disagree !
The only republicans I respect are ones such as @CathyorClare and @Puzzledandpissedoff who at least criticise ALL the royal family without reserving criticism for their favourites.

@BemusedAmerican , I do like to hear your thoughts as an American, it must be odd to have them spaffing about your republican country flashing their titles?!

@jeffgoldblum I am not looking for your respect. All I want is not to have the very personal and extremely nasty comments aimed at me by another poster yesterday.

They just come across as very new money to me. I grew up in the NYC metro area and got used to seeing celebrities walking down the street, or at my job, with no fanfare at all. The titles for the kids, the monogrammed doormat, what appears to be non-stop social media drama, are all completely removed from reality.

What really stuns me is their apparently poor money management skills. Also, I keep reading that the Montecito house is by a wild bird sanctuary. The man who died from Avian flu in Louisiana caught it from his backyard flock, and they got it from wild birds. Harry and his family are more at risk in their yard than in the UK.

I think the decline in Christianity has been pretty much ignored by most people as a threat to the Royal family. It is true the Royal family as an institution is woven into our "constitution", but that is intertwined with Christianity. Charles in not only the Head of State, but also the Head of the Church of England. Christianity is at the heart of the Coronation service.

But Christianity is declining rapidly in the UK. Only 1.6% of the population attend church weekly and only about half the population even believe in God/ As older people die out, there may be an increasing call to rid the state of privileges being given to the Church of England as part of the state apparatus. Tony Blair discussed doing this, although it never happened. A future moderniser government may decide to do this, and I think the public in general will support this. But it will be a challenge to the Royal family. It would be very easy when removing the Church of England's role in the state apparatus, to also remove the Royal Families. And at the very least, it would lead to major changes to the Royal families role in the state apparatus.

This article explains the coronation service and the role of Christianity.
The role of Christianity in our state apparatus is an increasing anachronism.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-christianity-is-at-the-heart-of-the-kings-coronation/