Page 2 | Is Charles sitting on a time bomb?

Dustyhem952 · 01/10/2025 14:57

MrsLeonFarrell · 01/10/2025 13:23

Yes they assimilated laws wholesale over 5 years and they promised to review each law and that process hasn't finished. Switching from a constitutional monarchy to a new system is far more complex than simply deciding to adopt laws you are already familiar with.

For a start what system are we going to switch to? Who will be the Head of State and what will their powers be? I haven't seen agreement on that pretty fundamental issue yet.

Show quote history

I would say it was certainly complex but not necessarily more complex and there are lots of good models in other countries we could follow such as Ireland and Iceland.

Lifestooshort71 · 01/10/2025 15:18

Letmeoutodhere · 30/09/2025 21:14

Imagine knowing that your child is being forced into a role that he doesn’t want and may not be fitted for.

Show quote history

And you know this because...?

MrsLeonFarrell · 01/10/2025 16:23

Dustyhem952 · 01/10/2025 14:57

I would say it was certainly complex but not necessarily more complex and there are lots of good models in other countries we could follow such as Ireland and Iceland.

Show quote history

There are models but we have to agree on one and that will take time. This is my point, it isn't as simply as deciding not to have a monarch, we also have to decide what we will have instead and then make the appropriate changes.

BettysRoasties · 01/10/2025 16:40

I’m no royalist however I do feel having elderly people as king or queen is just funny. Obviously love the departed queen she just lived forever. But for an elderly man to inherit king is just so weird.

Kings and queens should be younger not pensioners.

If a vote was head on keep Charlie boy and dissemble the royal family or William take over and it be more like a job with the king and queen stepping back and handing over the reigns once old. I’d vote to hand over to William.

If the vote was purely keep Charlie or dissemble. I’d vote dissemble.

MargaretThursday · 01/10/2025 18:53

I have children in the 13-28 age bracket, and I come across a good number of people in that age category through various things I do.
Last summer for various reasons, the monarchy seemed to come up quite a bit.

I would say that that age are either totally unbothered about the concept of a Monarchy or rather like it, and far more than you'd expect think it's "cool". Even some that are pretty unbothered, think that W (and K to a certain extent, but she gets mentioned less) are pretty "cool", and think they're better than an alternative.

Rhaidimiddim · 01/10/2025 22:59

ShesTheAlbatross · 30/09/2025 20:36

I think apathy will be the royal family’s best friend.

If there was a referendum, I’d vote to get rid. But it’s so so so far down my list of priorities that any party saying they’d offer one wouldn’t influence my vote at all. I’d also probably only vote to get rid if we were voting for a specific alternative, rather than “vote to get rid and figure out the details later”. Sell me a better alternative - that is absolutely possible, but I want to know what it would be.

A referendum would also be a bit of a nightmare globally surely? If we voted to get rid of the monarchy, presumably we wouldn’t be doing that on behalf of other countries. I mean, I’m sure they’d probably follow suit due to the practicalities (can you have a king of Canada, Australia etc living in the UK but not funded by the UK and not king of the Uk - how would it work) but some, not all, might be a bit annoyed, with a sense from the various prime ministers of “actually now is not a great time for us to be rewriting our constitution, we’re a bit busy, so thanks for chucking this at me. A huge row over what sort of power structure we have at the top of government is just what I wanted”.
So I think first, other countries will have to become republics, and then us at the end or at the same time as the last few.

Is there a similar lack of support for other monarchies in Europe?

Thank you for this thoughtful response. I'm always amazed at the casual way posters hete toss out the get-rid-of-them line without thinking about the hole that.would leave in the UK constitution, let alonevthe rest of the Commonwealth countries.

Monarchy is an antiquated system, and I'm sure W would prefer his children to have the same choices and freedoms in life as any other rich aristocrat's offspring. I think he might be the one to really get the ball.m9ving in that direction.

Rhaidimiddim · 01/10/2025 23:06

The Hanoverians handed over their ( until then privately owned by them) estates to the government in return for allowances (administered since via the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall).

I should imagine, if the RF ceased to play their role as Head-of-State providers, they'd want their gamily land returned to them.

SummerEve · 01/10/2025 23:14

padronpepper · 30/09/2025 20:39

Imagine the pressure on George in a few years.

He doesn’t have to do it and has the option to walk away. It’s 2025. He has siblings.

Dustyhem952 · 02/10/2025 11:37

MargaretThursday · 01/10/2025 18:53

I have children in the 13-28 age bracket, and I come across a good number of people in that age category through various things I do.
Last summer for various reasons, the monarchy seemed to come up quite a bit.

I would say that that age are either totally unbothered about the concept of a Monarchy or rather like it, and far more than you'd expect think it's "cool". Even some that are pretty unbothered, think that W (and K to a certain extent, but she gets mentioned less) are pretty "cool", and think they're better than an alternative.

M’y dc are of university age and they and their friends could not be less interested in the RF.

Dustyhem952 · 02/10/2025 11:46

Rhaidimiddim · 01/10/2025 22:59

Thank you for this thoughtful response. I'm always amazed at the casual way posters hete toss out the get-rid-of-them line without thinking about the hole that.would leave in the UK constitution, let alonevthe rest of the Commonwealth countries.

Monarchy is an antiquated system, and I'm sure W would prefer his children to have the same choices and freedoms in life as any other rich aristocrat's offspring. I think he might be the one to really get the ball.m9ving in that direction.

Show quote history

Oh please don’t assume it’s casual! Many republicans like myself are aware of the significant constitutional changes that will have to be made and many of us favour gradual change, step by step.

And yes I hope William is considering his options. Not least because the psychological stress on the individuals involved, must be huge. I don’t think any of us who enjoy private lives can imagine what living your life in a goldfish bowl is actually like, especially children. We know enough now about the detrimental effects of fame on the young mind not to want to impose it on them.

mathanxiety · 02/10/2025 20:51

MrsLeonFarrell · 01/10/2025 08:32

I don't believe the decline in popularity started with Harry and Meghan leaving, but I'd expect Jack Royston to write that.

The problem with articles like this is that they seem to believe removing the monarchy is as simple as Charles being told he isn't King anymore. But it isn't. It's a constitutional monarchy and, as the name suggests, it is tightly woven into many many part of our constitution, both those bits that are written and those that are precedent. To remove the monarchy requires a lot of planning and legal work.

Since Brexit we have seen the dangers of jumping into an enormous constitutional change without sufficient planning and forethought. I don't believe that many people are keen to repeat that experience.

Monarchy, by its very nature, plays a long game. Without overwhelming political will nothing is going to change and they can afford to wait for attitudes to change, as they historically have, both for and against. In the grand scheme of things whether we have a monarchy is small potatoes compared to the very present problems facing this country. But I do believe that part of the drop in popularity is related to those problems. For some reason there seems to be a narrative that if you remove the King fairness and justice and equality for all will reign and there will no longer be rich and powerful people with influence in the country. Which would be lovely but isn't true.

What is now the Republic of Ireland started out in 1922 as the Irish Free State. The Free State had the King of the time as monarch and a representative of the monarch fulfilled his constitutional duties, just as is now the case in Canada, Australia, etc.

In 1937, taking advantage of the abdication crisis, a new Irish Constitution was adopted, with a popularly elected president replacing the monarch in all former roles, thus achieving full socereignty. The Republic was officially declared to exist in 1948.

All you'd have to do is substitute a directly elected president for the role of monarch. You could keep all the rest of the trappings of the society built around the notion of a monarch at the top of a pyramid if you wished. The PM would go to the president to dissolve parliament. The wannabe PM would go to the president to say s/he had enough votes to form a government. Parliament could open itself as the Irish Dail does. A council of state could advise the president as to the legality or constitutionality of bills crossing his it her desk to sign into law.

MrsLeonFarrell · 02/10/2025 21:15

But the first step is getting the majority of the people to agree with the specific model. (I'm pretty sure that Ireland's president isn't a substitute monarch and has a different role.)

I don't see agreement as to the model we should adopt, when it was discussed last there seemed to be multiple options and opinions. Brexit is a very recent lesson on the need to look before you leap and I'm not willing to vote for leaping anywhere in the dark. I don't see £350 million going into the NHS each week and neither do I see a clear path to changing constitutional monarchy into something else.

It's easy to point out things that need to change, particularly financially (I agree). It's easy to point to polls and say the monarchy is losing support (I agree that the recent polls say that but disagree that it's a sign change is imminent). It's easy to call for change by shouting slogans and waving placards (Graham Smith looking at you). I want to see a detailed alternative, with large scale support behind it. That seems to be a bit hard.

Original poster

padronpepper · 02/10/2025 21:43

Realistically there are only 7 people now who can be considered working royals.
In 10 years that figure could be as low as 4.
What happens then?

OP posts:

Original poster

padronpepper · 02/10/2025 21:51

Maybe 22 year old George, 20 year old Charlotte and 17 year old Louis will be pushed into action.
Mind you Leonor, Crown Princess of Spain, gave her first public speech at the age of 13.

OP posts:

GasperyJacquesRoberts · 02/10/2025 21:52

I read somewhere online the proposal that we declare that the royal family will end in 2066. It'd be a nice symbolic 1,000 years since William the Conqueror, will give Charles time to shuffle off this mortal coil and quite possibly William as well, and give George a lot of notice to get his head around the idea that even if he does get to be king it'd be a reign with a definite end date. It'd also give us plenty of time to sort out what we'll replace them with.

LidlAmaretto · 02/10/2025 22:05

DontReinMeIn · 01/10/2025 08:47

Her role was to uphold the constitution. She didn’t. It’s that simple. If they don’t do that, what’s the point?

Show quote history

You can't have an unelected monarch overruling an elected government. It's up to The courts to interpret the constitution. They have no power to do anything and it would make no difference if they were here or not. They are more or less for show.

MoonWasBlue · 03/10/2025 10:08

A referendum would also be a bit of a nightmare globally surely? If we voted to get rid of the monarchy, presumably we wouldn’t be doing that on behalf of other countries. I mean, I’m sure they’d probably follow suit due to the practicalities (can you have a king of Canada, Australia etc living in the UK but not funded by the UK and not king of the Uk - how would it work) but some, not all, might be a bit annoyed, with a sense from the various prime ministers of “actually now is not a great time for us to be rewriting our constitution, we’re a bit busy, so thanks for chucking this at me. A huge row over what sort of power structure we have at the top of government is just what I wanted”.

I’m Australian and while I think some Australians would be sad to see the King go as head of state, he’s really not got any power here now. The King of Australia is a figurehead only.

Although the King’s representative in Australia is the Australian Governor General - she is appointed by the Australian government and answers only to the Australian government. The monarch has no power and no influence here, although he is kept informed. He is not head of our armed forces either.

But I agree that the above poster is right in that it wouldn’t be that welcomed at this time. I don’t think there are many people really looking to change head of state at the moment. I do think if America had elected a more stable president then we would have had a referendum to change our head of state sometime in the next three years. It’s currently off the table. If the current Australian government gets a third term in 3 years time, there’d be any huge row over what form of president we have.

I doubt there’d be any ‘huge row’ though. If the King stood down, the decision of whether to have a republic is made for us. It would then be a question of do we want an elected president or do we want a president appointed by the government? We see what is happening under Trump. He looks to be in mental decline just as Biden seemed to be by the end of his term. I suspect most of us would be inclined to think a President appointed by the Australian government, who can be dismissed by the government, is the best way to go.

bumbaloo · 03/10/2025 10:14

ShesTheAlbatross · 30/09/2025 20:36

I think apathy will be the royal family’s best friend.

If there was a referendum, I’d vote to get rid. But it’s so so so far down my list of priorities that any party saying they’d offer one wouldn’t influence my vote at all. I’d also probably only vote to get rid if we were voting for a specific alternative, rather than “vote to get rid and figure out the details later”. Sell me a better alternative - that is absolutely possible, but I want to know what it would be.

A referendum would also be a bit of a nightmare globally surely? If we voted to get rid of the monarchy, presumably we wouldn’t be doing that on behalf of other countries. I mean, I’m sure they’d probably follow suit due to the practicalities (can you have a king of Canada, Australia etc living in the UK but not funded by the UK and not king of the Uk - how would it work) but some, not all, might be a bit annoyed, with a sense from the various prime ministers of “actually now is not a great time for us to be rewriting our constitution, we’re a bit busy, so thanks for chucking this at me. A huge row over what sort of power structure we have at the top of government is just what I wanted”.
So I think first, other countries will have to become republics, and then us at the end or at the same time as the last few.

Is there a similar lack of support for other monarchies in Europe?

The alternative would be obvious. Like any other true democratic republic it would be an elected head of state. A president. It comes with issues as we know but at least it is a democratically elected individual. Not perfect but better than an elitist system of being born into a RF with a job for life regardless of quality of the individual and a system that will make excuses and hide indiscretions to uphold the institution.
I agree apathy is the RF best friend

clipboardz · 03/10/2025 10:20

I have children in the 13-28 age bracket, and I come across a good number of people in that age category through various things I do. Last summer for various reasons, the monarchy seemed to come up quite a bit.*

I would say that that age are either totally unbothered about the concept of a Monarchy or rather like it, and far more than you'd expect think it's "cool". Even some that are pretty unbothered, think that W (and K to a certain extent, but she gets mentioned less) are pretty "cool", and think they're better than an alternative.

All the young people I know are completely indifferent. W&K are pretty boring tbf

inamo · 03/10/2025 10:43

As an example of a Presidency (totally unlike that of the US or France for example), The ROI is about to have a Presidential election. There are three candidates, two of whom are politicians (MPs) and one of whom is an ordinary citizen who has a very good chance of winning. The President doesn't have executive powers of Government, s/he is HOS and it is a highly respected role which is primarily to uphold the Constitution. There is a Council of State that the president can consult in matters of constitutional or legislative difficulty. Sounds good to me!

https://president.ie/en/the-president/constitutional-role

The President | President of Ireland

Welcome to the website of the President of Ireland.

https://president.ie/en/the-president/constitutional-role

HairyToity · 03/10/2025 10:53

GasperyJacquesRoberts · 02/10/2025 21:52

I read somewhere online the proposal that we declare that the royal family will end in 2066. It'd be a nice symbolic 1,000 years since William the Conqueror, will give Charles time to shuffle off this mortal coil and quite possibly William as well, and give George a lot of notice to get his head around the idea that even if he does get to be king it'd be a reign with a definite end date. It'd also give us plenty of time to sort out what we'll replace them with.

I love this proposal. It gives us 41 years to sort out a replacement system, and who gets what. We can have William the first and William the last. I think the idea of a special family by blood ,that we should all fawn over is very antiquated.

Rhaidimiddim · 03/10/2025 14:53

padronpepper · 02/10/2025 21:43

Realistically there are only 7 people now who can be considered working royals.
In 10 years that figure could be as low as 4.
What happens then?

Er, local authorities learn to open libraries without needing Someone Special limousined in? As a nation, we learn to live without the BP garden parties?

And the HoS just quietly gets on with the stuff expected of them, getting trundled out now and then to meet and greet important visitors and tap the shoulder of people awarded medals, ONEs etc.

And we get used to it.

LidlAmaretto · 03/10/2025 15:28

HairyToity · 03/10/2025 10:53

I love this proposal. It gives us 41 years to sort out a replacement system, and who gets what. We can have William the first and William the last. I think the idea of a special family by blood ,that we should all fawn over is very antiquated.

Show quote history

That's a great idea. Will never happen. William will never relinquish the Throne. Not for him, not for his son. They think they are born to rule

LidlAmaretto · 03/10/2025 15:35

Rhaidimiddim · 03/10/2025 14:53

Er, local authorities learn to open libraries without needing Someone Special limousined in? As a nation, we learn to live without the BP garden parties?

And the HoS just quietly gets on with the stuff expected of them, getting trundled out now and then to meet and greet important visitors and tap the shoulder of people awarded medals, ONEs etc.

And we get used to it.

Show quote history

I'd rather have a famous local author open a library for example that a minor Royal. Most people could spare an afternoon to do that alongside actually achieving things. He could invite his cousins to garden parties if he liked.

LidlAmaretto · 03/10/2025 15:39

MoonWasBlue · 03/10/2025 10:08

A referendum would also be a bit of a nightmare globally surely? If we voted to get rid of the monarchy, presumably we wouldn’t be doing that on behalf of other countries. I mean, I’m sure they’d probably follow suit due to the practicalities (can you have a king of Canada, Australia etc living in the UK but not funded by the UK and not king of the Uk - how would it work) but some, not all, might be a bit annoyed, with a sense from the various prime ministers of “actually now is not a great time for us to be rewriting our constitution, we’re a bit busy, so thanks for chucking this at me. A huge row over what sort of power structure we have at the top of government is just what I wanted”.

I’m Australian and while I think some Australians would be sad to see the King go as head of state, he’s really not got any power here now. The King of Australia is a figurehead only.

Although the King’s representative in Australia is the Australian Governor General - she is appointed by the Australian government and answers only to the Australian government. The monarch has no power and no influence here, although he is kept informed. He is not head of our armed forces either.

But I agree that the above poster is right in that it wouldn’t be that welcomed at this time. I don’t think there are many people really looking to change head of state at the moment. I do think if America had elected a more stable president then we would have had a referendum to change our head of state sometime in the next three years. It’s currently off the table. If the current Australian government gets a third term in 3 years time, there’d be any huge row over what form of president we have.

I doubt there’d be any ‘huge row’ though. If the King stood down, the decision of whether to have a republic is made for us. It would then be a question of do we want an elected president or do we want a president appointed by the government? We see what is happening under Trump. He looks to be in mental decline just as Biden seemed to be by the end of his term. I suspect most of us would be inclined to think a President appointed by the Australian government, who can be dismissed by the government, is the best way to go.

Yes, didn't Barbados just give the role to the Attorney-General with no fuss whatsoever?