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.

Why is your energy concentrated on the head of state role though? Out of all the state institutions, how does a constitutional monarch with no power have a more detrimental effect on the nation's wellbeing than any of the other institutions? How will changing the head of state make a difference to any of the other institutions? Why should we spend years on this particular issue, that will undoubtedly dominate all discourse and scarce publicly funded resources in the way Brexit did, to end up with AN Other pretty much doing exactly the same thing as the monarch (if my reading of Republic is correct), rather than shake up one of the other institutions that will actually make a material difference to the day to day lives of citizens?

For me it’s about principle and credibility.

As Republic UK says, “hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle”.

Partly because the public cannot hold the royal family to account at the ballot box, “there’s nothing to stop them abusing their privilege, misusing their influence or simply wasting our money”.

I think people are gradually becoming more aware of this now.

And partly because the monarch “can only ever act in the interests of the government of the day and does not represent ordinary voters”.

More than ever, we need an elected head of state who could really represent our hopes and aspirations and, most importantly, keep politicians in check.

A system of hereditary monarchy heading UK’s political, military and religious institutions, also perpetuates class divisions and inequality, as does its ossified distribution of wealth and power.

I find it increasingly anachronistic in 2025, with soaring costs and stagnating wages, with our children facing bleak futures, that we are represented by an institution that perpetuates elitism, obscene wealth and unearned privilege.

When the King hosts an event for young entrepreneurs, is it ever mentioned that his commercial enterprises, and those of his son, are exempt from corporation tax?

And when William visits the homeless and underprivileged; do you think it crosses his mind that his wealth and status is protected by the fact that he and his father are exempt from inheritance tax and capital gains tax?

Does no one else think there is a significant credibility issue here?

As I’ve said before after the shitstorm that was Brexit I’m wary of change. Tax exemptions I assume are to do with family or crown property passing into foreign ownership.

Agree. Where do they think the money comes from to improve public services? Do they think it's solely from donations resulting from their turning up to shake hands with people at a food bank or do they think it's from taxation of their subjects? It's all do as I say ( Donate to charity) but not as I do. I'm willing to bet that the money they allegedly raise for these charities is dwarfed by the tax exemptions they get on the Duchies, plus the money they take from charities and the government in rent.

Why is your energy concentrated on the head of state role though? Out of all the state institutions, how does a constitutional monarch with no power have a more detrimental effect on the nation's wellbeing than any of the other institutions? How will changing the head of state make a difference to any of the other institutions
For me, I agree it is not important, but I think the culture of deference we have to them is harmful. They have far too much power to manipulate rules to suit themselves. By all means have a Monarch, but they should not be permitted to demand changes in legislation to suit themselves. If the Duchies are private businesses, and as a result have to charge market rates for rent ( who negotiated these contracts? Yes successive governments kowtowing to the Royals) then they should pay corporation tax. If they are not they need to be rolled into the Crown Estates. Why can they not be discussed in Parliament? If the Monarch and the PoW want exemptions from legislation they should have to issue a statement to justify it in Parliament and it should have to be debated and voted on. The Rule of Law is ' No one is above the Law'. Royal Consent makes a mockery of that if part of the Law contains a clause saying actually, in this case the two most powerful people in the country are above the Law.

How can I possibly know what the housing and security costs would be for a Head of State when we do not know the current cost for the Royal family. these costs are not transparent. Of course it would be less. We would not have all the hangers on for a start.

Well said. @JoyousGreyOrca Some of the questions that are thrown at those that criticize the monarchy are beyond a joke. We are not in Government nor are we constitutional experts and spending years planning for a Republic. I would love to know the cost of security for the royal family but it's always sad it is a security issue to reveal it. Yeah, course it is! And the reason it's not revealed is because the public would be astounded at how much is spent on security for all of them.
Armed bodyguards, patrols at all the Royal homes 24/7, cash strapped councils having to pay for security for any royal visit. We, as a country will be spending an incredible extraordinary amount of money protecting the Windsors.

@Sallyslider653 your post at 03.48 is spot on. It is all about principle and credibility

Journalists have tried to find out but thwarted at every attempt.

Their decision means the bill for protecting the royal family – thought to run into tens of millions a year – will remain an official secret. It also means that without knowing the figure for this bill, it is in effect impossible for the public to know the total cost of funding the monarchy.

Taken from an article last year. Which means we haven't got a clue how much the monarchy costs us but yet posters on here are supposed to nail down how much a republic that isn't happening and is just a pipe dream would cost us!

Bottom line the monarchy costs us a huge amount of money and it will be far more than the bit we know about

No no, we aren't going to bother with the institutions that actually impact people lives, we will focus purely on the royal family, that will sort everything

@JoyousGreyOrca The Royal residences could be passed over to the NT or a similar body. They could all be opened to the public and become money making, but they need a body with experience of managing and maintaining historic houses.

I'm not an expert but I doubt the NT could afford to take on all the Royal residences, even if they did try to make them work for a living. I think - and someone correct me if I am wrong - that they can't / don't take on all the houses currently which are offered to them.

I just don't think they need so many.
one each and a place in london would do.

Perhaps some of the spare houses could be used to end homelessness

In a solicitors office

Yes, we are moving toward a secular State post removal of Welby and how many of us were franklydisappointed to see him crownCharles, a real anachronism, Charles
being a hypocrite, adulterer and all …

I mean, the reason Charles is Head of the Church of England in the first place is because of the whims of a murderer, a hypocrite and an adulterer. I don't think we would have many Kings if 'adultery' was a barrier!

Two moribund institutions, each headed by jaded and morally compromised individuals, continue to prop each other up in a futile attempt to avoid falling into utter irrelevance.

That is Williams project, he could lead from the front by doing that

"Perhaps some of the spare houses could be used to end homelessness"

That sounds like a sensible solution - not 🙄

moribund ! what a great word, well applied, in a perspicacious response, thanks

Well.... a year ago almost to the day it was announced William would build 24 houses on Duchy of Cornwall land in his aim to end homelessness. Have they been buiilt? Is it a model that is to be rolled out nationwide? I can't find anything since the announcement. It's part of a 5-year plan apparently

Homelessness is a huge problem in Cornwall exacerbated by second homes Airbnb'd.

First homes due to complete Autumn 25 @TulipTiptoer

Rax exemptions are to do with the hoarding of wealth by the Royal family, nothing more.

Thanks myrtle, I did try and find that! Let's hope it's effective and it can be used as a template.

Just to add, from everything I have read the Church of England is in absolute crisis with a large number of bishops but collapsing parishes, churches closing and many in a state of disrepair, and major divisions within the leadership of the church about the way forward and how to respond to the child sex abuse and safeguarding.
It is a weak institution and I doubt it could mount an effective fightback from any government that wanted to disestablish the church. The only thing saving them is the government has so many big issues to deal with.

The homes are being funded by the foundation, but built by a charity. Sorry I think the only template it is providing is that initiatives need funding.
It was also started by Charles, not William, although William took the glory.

The homes will be brilliant for those who live in them. It will make a difference to those families. But it is not going to change anything in how we fight homelessness in this country.

Can you link the homelessness project/Charles announcement please @JoyousGreyOrca if it was announced when he was the Duke of Cornwall, I’m bemused as to why development took so long - were there planning issues?