Should King Charles abdicate?

[catspyjamas1]

His health.
Harry and Megan back in the UK.
The book from Diana's brother.

Should the King abdicate?

I am pretty sure the 'men in grey' who arrange these things avoid putting all their eggs in one basket when it comes to travel, to avoid the direct line of succession being disrupted by a tragic accident. So Charles, William and George would not be travelling together.

And I presume all the security around Andrew has been withdrawn totally...😁

should he be bullied off the throne by a bitter ex in law who's trying to cash in on their relationship 30 years later, or by the actions of his annoying adult son who is annoying but not actually doing anything illegal? no.

his health, his choice.

no but William and his kids often do. I suspect that will have to change at some point soon

Yes, I can imagine and I'd prefer both of them over the terminally dull and boring other two. I'm not a royalist - but I wouldn't want a president either, which people erroneously assume that we'd need. Best for them to have a very diminished role after Charles.

Do they definitely travel together for significant journeys? They might be seen arriving together or be in a ceremonial carriage but that doesn't mean they've travelled together down the M1 or in the same plane by air.

If they do I think you're right that they won't do so forever, certainly not once William is king.

Or this.

Thank the lord he was second out.

He won't abdicate but should never have acceded to the throne IMO (although I acknowledge that having waited 70 years that was never going to happen).

E2's death was the perfect time for all of them to walk into the sunset with dignity intact. Instead we have an increasingly tawdry debacle on our hands.

I hope W has more sense but all the indications so far are he doesn't.

Abolish the monarchy A waste of space and money.

Public service announcement.

For those intent on gripping onto their pennies, full stops are free. And do t take up much space.

End of public service announcement.

@OneMauveEchidnaLLM
How is that in any way relevant to the thread?
And presumably your do t should have been don’t ?

Just testing! 😁

For that and senses of humour.

Still, one out of two isn’t bad. 😉

I do apologise for the mistake though. These things will happen when you are commuting 🤷🏽

But if you want relevant to the thread? No one was asking if the RF were a waste of space and money - just if KC should abdicate so……

True!

“Working royals” always makes me
laugh…

Apparently it takes breeding, dedication and decades of experience to be able to be driven to places, unveiling plaques and then making small talk. It must be so hard. Plus every now and then you have to wear a gaudy hat!

Me too. It’s the ultimate oxymoron.

Oh that's such a worn out excuse. It's the 21st century .

Are worn out excuses banned in the 21c century, then?

What's 'worn out' is the "abolish the monarchy, get rid of the freeloaders" with absolutely no thought for the constitutional and political implications and how we go about it, how long it would take and what we put in its place - even assuming the majority of the country wants to be rid of the monarchy.

And it's not for the lack of these questions being asked on here about these points.

And get down from a tractor effortlessly, let's not forget that one, or showing such poise walking on grass in heels!
What achievements!

If we need a representative on the world stage then we already have one who already does exactly that - the Prime Minister. It's not the law that if you get rid of your monarch you have to replace them with a president. We could just... not. Many other countries seem to do quite well with combining the head of the government with the world-stage representative roles.

For the head of the Church of England then that's what the Archbishop of Canterbury effectively already does so we don't need a king for that.

What else do we need a monarch for? To have a face to put on stamps?

What, so if something's a bit tricky , you dont do it? At that rate we'd all still be living in caves.

Why would having a President not work?

They will claim because we could have Someone like president trump, ignoring that we could easily have had king Andrew.

With a president you can put guard re ails in place. No criminal offences, have to pass a security check - that alone would rule out Andrew due to his close links with Epstein and Maxwell, and perhaps some test around being non controversial and bringing people together. Would be easy to have a suitable panel to screen candidates that the public vote on.

The other claim is the voting cost,which would be miniscule when compared to the current royal family cost. Easy to include the vote in a general election.

The last claim for why we can't have a president is the difficulty of disentangling the r old of the current royal family. But the constitutional role is,

• opening parliament and other ceremonial roles. The president could do this.
• signing assents to bills. This is a nonsense in a democracy and we saw with attempted illegal prorogation offers zero safeguards to an illegal bill. It's the court who offer protection.
• head of church of England. It's up to the church decide who they want to be head. I would leave this as a private matter for them to decide.
• royal patrons and other honorary positions. Again make it clear the individuals are no longer royal. And leave it to the charities and organisations to decide whether to keep them as patrons or not.
• state dinners, diplomacy, etc the president will do.

The only difficult part will be fighting the royal family who will be trying to claim as much money as possible. We know they have already stolen gifts to the state such as an expensive stamp collection. They would be trying to steal lots through the process of abolishing them.

And just to add, William has indicated he may get rid of many of the ceremonial roles such as order of the garter anyway.