Should Queen Lizzie be the last in the Game of Royals?

mercalia · Post by **mercalia** » 17 May 2018, 1:18pm

seeing as though there dont seem to be much grass roots interest in the coming nuptials re street parties and the like, is it time to call it a day on the queen and her kind and make her the last?

if gradually then how many more episodes for the last series?

yakdiver · Post by **yakdiver** » 17 May 2018, 2:22pm

A Royal or someone like Blair as a President...... God forbid

Mike Sales · Post by **Mike Sales** » 17 May 2018, 2:32pm

yakdiver wrote:A Royal or someone like Blair as a President...... God forbid

There are sixty odd million people in these islands. Why on earth would we choose Blair? Many more worthy candidates.

Tangled Metal · Post by **Tangled Metal** » 17 May 2018, 2:37pm

My view is when she ceases to be Queen then two acceptable options exist IMHO. First Charles becomes king for at long as he wants it. Second end to any form of monarchy and switch to another form of democratic system with negotiated legalities being sorted.

Basically IMHO the monarchy should only exist if the succession is followed. Namely Queen, Charles then William. No skipping Charles in favour of a more acceptable / popular second in the line of succession such as William.

The monarchy has value because of its long history. Whilst there's been skips and jumps in the line of concession now it's been less turbulent times for awhile which means IMHO no justification for a jump to b another generation or line of succession because of lack of approval for Charles.

Unless he's died first he's next in line for a full term (no abdication) or nobody is. That's my strong view on monarchy. It has no more value without mother to son then later on to grandson.

Mike Sales · Post by **Mike Sales** » 17 May 2018, 2:42pm

Tangled Metal wrote:Unless he's died first he's next in line for a full term (no abdication) or nobody is. That's my strong view on monarchy. It has no more value without mother to son then later on to grandson.

Surely the line stopped with Edward VII then, in your view?

mercalia · Post by **mercalia** » 17 May 2018, 3:19pm

Mike Sales wrote:
Tangled Metal wrote:Unless he's died first he's next in line for a full term (no abdication) or nobody is. That's my strong view on monarchy. It has no more value without mother to son then later on to grandson.

Surely the line stopped with Edward VII then, in your view?

or Harold of Wessex

Mike Sales · Post by **Mike Sales** » 17 May 2018, 3:22pm

mercalia wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:
Tangled Metal wrote:Unless he's died first he's next in line for a full term (no abdication) or nobody is. That's my strong view on monarchy. It has no more value without mother to son then later on to grandson.

Surely the line stopped with Edward VII then, in your view?

or Harold of Wessex

There's some who think that Charles Stuart, the Young Pretender, had a better claim than WilliamandMary.

Tangled Metal · Post by **Tangled Metal** » 17 May 2018, 3:30pm

He did abdicate but he did so because his choice of consort was not conforming to the rules / practises of the day. He had the choice and chose the option that the establishment couldn't accept so he got manoeuvred out.

IMHO skipping Charles isn't because of any rules or practises of the day being broken. It's purely a case of face doesn't fit. IMHO there's a difference that's sufficient. Edward could easily have remained king with Simpson as his mistress and a more acceptable consort to give the line heirs.

I get the feeling Charles wants to be king but there's a populist view he should be skipped to "save" the monarchy. It's populism or celebrity without merit IMHO. If you're doing that then why give William the job? Let's put it out there as a job description for a new king or queen? Let's consider starting a new line? What about Simon Cowell leading a talent contest for the best / most popular candidate for monarch?

The point I am trying to make that whilst in more turbulent times there's been breaks in succession, there hasn't been the same breaks in modern, stable times. Edward is a break but IMHO there is a slight but for me sufficient distinction. That is an element of choice.

Charles was clearly involved with Camilla in the past but it wasn't viable in the times for him to follow that line. Kind of like Edward. He chose not to follow it but to stay with the royal heir role. Later on he got Camilla but only after it became acceptable. He chose to be heir and IMHO should become monarch. Edward chose to leave the monarchy role behind.

Personally it's all pointless because no matter what happens I think we'll ditch the monarchy sooner or later. Perhaps that's my wishful thinking but I belief it will and must happen.

Mike Sales · Post by **Mike Sales** » 17 May 2018, 3:34pm

Tangled Metal wrote:He did abdicate but he did so because his choice of consort was not conforming to the rules / practises of the day. He had the choice and chose the option that the establishment couldn't accept so he got manoeuvred out.

IMHO skipping Charles isn't because of any rules or practises of the day being broken. It's purely a case of face doesn't fit. IMHO there's a difference that's sufficient. Edward could easily have remained king with Simpson as his mistress and a more acceptable consort to give the line heirs.

I get the feeling Charles wants to be king but there's a populist view he should be skipped to "save" the monarchy. It's populism or celebrity without merit IMHO. If you're doing that then why give William the job? Let's put it out there as a job description for a new king or queen? Let's consider starting a new line? What about Simon Cowell leading a talent contest for the best / most popular candidate for monarch?

The point I am trying to make that whilst in more turbulent times there's been breaks in succession, there hasn't been the same breaks in modern, stable times. Edward is a break but IMHO there is a slight but for me sufficient distinction. That is an element of choice.

Charles was clearly involved with Camilla in the past but it wasn't viable in the times for him to follow that line. Kind of like Edward. He chose not to follow it but to stay with the royal heir role. Later on he got Camilla but only after it became acceptable. He chose to be heir and IMHO should become monarch. Edward chose to leave the monarchy role behind.

Personally it's all pointless because no matter what happens I think we'll ditch the monarchy sooner or later. Perhaps that's my wishful thinking but I belief it will and must happen.

I can see you have put some thought into this. I haven't, I would just rather see the back of the whole lot. Kings may have been useful before we had democracy, but they are now surplus to requirements. Superfluous. Keeping them on as a tourist attraction ought, to a monarchist, be an insult.

Tangled Metal · Post by **Tangled Metal** » 17 May 2018, 3:36pm

Mike Sales wrote:
Tangled Metal wrote:He did abdicate but he did so because his choice of consort was not conforming to the rules / practises of the day. He had the choice and chose the option that the establishment couldn't accept so he got manoeuvred out.

IMHO skipping Charles isn't because of any rules or practises of the day being broken. It's purely a case of face doesn't fit. IMHO there's a difference that's sufficient. Edward could easily have remained king with Simpson as his mistress and a more acceptable consort to give the line heirs.

I get the feeling Charles wants to be king but there's a populist view he should be skipped to "save" the monarchy. It's populism or celebrity without merit IMHO. If you're doing that then why give William the job? Let's put it out there as a job description for a new king or queen? Let's consider starting a new line? What about Simon Cowell leading a talent contest for the best / most popular candidate for monarch?

The point I am trying to make that whilst in more turbulent times there's been breaks in succession, there hasn't been the same breaks in modern, stable times. Edward is a break but IMHO there is a slight but for me sufficient distinction. That is an element of choice.

Charles was clearly involved with Camilla in the past but it wasn't viable in the times for him to follow that line. Kind of like Edward. He chose not to follow it but to stay with the royal heir role. Later on he got Camilla but only after it became acceptable. He chose to be heir and IMHO should become monarch. Edward chose to leave the monarchy role behind.

Personally it's all pointless because no matter what happens I think we'll ditch the monarchy sooner or later. Perhaps that's my wishful thinking but I belief it will and must happen.

I can see you have put some thought into this. I haven't, I would just rather see the back of the whole lot. Kings may have been useful before we had democracy, but they are now surplus to requirements. Superfluous. Keeping them on as a tourist attraction ought, to a monarchist, be an insult.

Not really but it seems I have to justify my opinion a lot on here. An outsider within an out group it seems. :wink:

mercalia · Post by **mercalia** » 17 May 2018, 3:54pm

Tangled Metal wrote:He did abdicate but he did so because his choice of consort was not conforming to the rules / practises of the day. He had the choice and chose the option that the establishment couldn't accept so he got manoeuvred out.

IMHO skipping Charles isn't because of any rules or practises of the day being broken. It's purely a case of face doesn't fit. IMHO there's a difference that's sufficient. Edward could easily have remained king with Simpson as his mistress and a more acceptable consort to give the line heirs.

I get the feeling Charles wants to be king but there's a populist view he should be skipped to "save" the monarchy. It's populism or celebrity without merit IMHO. If you're doing that then why give William the job? Let's put it out there as a job description for a new king or queen? Let's consider starting a new line? What about Simon Cowell leading a talent contest for the best / most popular candidate for monarch?

The point I am trying to make that whilst in more turbulent times there's been breaks in succession, there hasn't been the same breaks in modern, stable times. Edward is a break but IMHO there is a slight but for me sufficient distinction. That is an element of choice.

Charles was clearly involved with Camilla in the past but it wasn't viable in the times for him to follow that line. Kind of like Edward. He chose not to follow it but to stay with the royal heir role. Later on he got Camilla but only after it became acceptable. He chose to be heir and IMHO should become monarch. Edward chose to leave the monarchy role behind.

Personally it's all pointless because no matter what happens I think we'll ditch the monarchy sooner or later. Perhaps that's my wishful thinking but I belief it will and must happen.

how old is Charlie Boy now? maybe just the right one to see out the monarchy as unlike the younger ones he has a close use-by-date? he is just the one as he represents the old ideas that the monarchy is?

I think Simon Cowell might like the job. :lol:

The show would certainly make a good one-off comedy. The other person is Alan Sugars show, The Apprentice?

Mike Sales · Post by **Mike Sales** » 17 May 2018, 3:59pm

Tangled Metal wrote:Not really but it seems I have to justify my opinion a lot on here. An outsider within an out group it seems.

I hope you don't feel that badly, I think of you as one of the gang! Anyone who contributes in a civil, coherent way should be welcome. If we all agreed there would be no posting, no interest.
The technical and information side of the forum is very valuable, but I think we all enjoy a bit of argy-bargy in the tea shop.

Mike Sales · Post by **Mike Sales** » 17 May 2018, 4:01pm

mercalia wrote:I think Simon Cowell might like the job. The show would certainly make a good one-off comedy. The other person is Alan Sugars show, The Apprentice?

How about Alan Bennet?

Psamathe · Post by **Psamathe** » 17 May 2018, 4:40pm

Tangled Metal wrote:....
Basically IMHO the monarchy should only exist if the succession is followed. Namely Queen, Charles then William. No skipping Charles in favour of a more acceptable / popular second in the line of succession such as William.

The monarchy has value because of its long history. Whilst there's been skips and jumps in the line of concession now it's been less turbulent times for awhile which means IMHO no justification for a jump to b another generation or line of succession because of lack of approval for Charles.
.....

I don't agree that "monarchy has value because of its long history" - many things have had a long history but that does not make them worth retaining (e.g. slavery).

Interestingly, being a republican I do agree that it is important that Charles take over from the Queen. But I doubt any "subjects" would agree with my reasons, which are that Charles would do untold damage to the concept of "Royal Family"; his unpopularity is of his own making and his attitudes such that I cannot see those character flaws changing. He regards the country as his and thinks everybody should comply with his wishes and once King he will consider he has the authority ... and end result will be the demise of the Royal Family (probably not the end of the monarchy but much reduced, lower burden on taxpayer, fewer castles and palaces, etc.)

Ian

Psamathe · Post by **Psamathe** » 17 May 2018, 4:45pm

Mike Sales wrote:..... Keeping them on as a tourist attraction ought, to a monarchist, be an insult.

An excellent point. And I will remember it as a good response when people start on about how they (very questionably) "pay for themselves" through increased tourism. It is an insult and I wonder if we spent the royal budget on theme parks, converted the palaces and castles to hotels we'd probably be even better off. Can you imagine how much some sucker would pay to sleep in the same room as <x> in Buck Pal. Nightly rates would be tremendous.

Ian

Cycling UK Forum