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

[mercalia]

..... 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

good idea or turn it into a reality type thing "want to be queen for a day?" You can bet the yanks would come in droves?

[reohn2]

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

God* forbid it wereTheresa May either.


*should there be such

[reohn2]

..... 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

+1.
If ever there were pretenders to monachism it's the ones presiding over and of whom I and everyone else is referred to as "subjects".
Democracy,what democracy?
Demockracy more like,they're a bunch of spongers the lot of them.

[thirdcrank]

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

There's unlikely to be any change to the system unless it faces a crisis.

Apart from anything else, our politicians tend to like the pomp and circumstance that rubs off on them; a change to a republic would almost inevitably involve a review of the whole carry on.

There's a third possibility besides a hereditary contitutional monarch ie one who fulfils the role but doesn't interfere AKA acts on the advice of her ministers and some sort of elected president who would almost inevitably have a political background, even if the real power remained with the prime minister. That "third way" is the hereditary monarch with a personal agenda.

Comparisons have been made with previous Princes of Wales, probably the most obvious being the last, who became Edward VIII and then abicated to become Duke of Windsor. Although there's been controversy whipped up over the status of the Duchess of Cornwall, a divorcee like Wallis Simpson, in 2018 who's bothered? Although a lot of the pressure on Edward VIII came from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo Lang, does anybody really think that Justin Welby has the same influence or that he would try to use it? If Charles's marital situation is going to harm him, it will be the constant reminders of Diana eg, the next big anniversary will be 25 years in 2022. The other thing which contributed to the last Prince of Wales downfall was his political agenda.

Fast forward eight decades of George VI and Elizabeth II and we have a Prince of Wales keen to influence our society. If the Queen lives as long as her mother, she has another decade to look forward to. The Prince of Wales is already taking on more of the official duties and with that greater prominence. The inevitable death of the Duke of Edinburgh will both affect the Queen and be one fewer constraint on the Prince of Wales. Soon to be seventy himself, he's not a young man and has little time left for reigning. His first speech at the State Opening of Parliament, either reading the Quuen's Speech as a stand-in or his own King's Speech could trigger the crisis.

[reohn2]

There's unlikely to be any change to the system unless it faces a crisis......

A bit like driving standards and penalties for killing people with a car then

[Psamathe]

....
There's unlikely to be any change to the system unless it faces a crisis.

Apart from anything else, our politicians tend to like the pomp and circumstance that rubs off on them; a change to a republic would almost inevitably involve a review of the whole carry on......

Or, at present prominent politicians expect to be appointed to the House of Lords. Point out to them that they could move up to be President and they'd be salivating and probably arguing for change to a republic.

Ian

[Cunobelin]

We could look at the reality again?

The last "independent"poll on the subject:

Two thirds (65%) of UK adults think Britain should continue to have a monarchy in the future. Only 19% hoped that Britain would become a republic at some point in the future, the lowest proportion seen in the four waves of this study.
Seven in ten (70%) think Britain is perceived more positively abroad because of the Monarchy, and a further 65% think there is still a place for the Monarchy in modern Britain.
Only 27% thought that the Monarchy is a meaningless institution, down slightly from 30% in August 2015.

So really is a small vociferous minority expressing and trying to o justify a position that is not only small, but decreasing?

Reality is a minority trying to undemocratically impose their wishes on the majority

[Cyril Haearn]

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.

Plus One for diversity of opinions
But I do wish people would be brief and concise cos I am so lazy, prefer short txts
What about the commonwealth? Some nations might want to keep her if "we" don't

[Cyril Haearn]

We could look at the reality again?

The last "independent"poll on the subject:

Two thirds (65%) of UK adults think Britain should continue to have a monarchy in the future. Only 19% hoped that Britain would become a republic at some point in the future, the lowest proportion seen in the four waves of this study.
Seven in ten (70%) think Britain is perceived more positively abroad because of the Monarchy, and a further 65% think there is still a place for the Monarchy in modern Britain.
Only 27% thought that the Monarchy is a meaningless institution, down slightly from 30% in August 2015.

So really is a small vociferous minority expressing and trying to o justify a position that is not only small, but decreasing?

Reality is a minority trying to undemocratically impose their wishes on the majority

What was the turnout? How many don't have an opinion? Often the biggest "party" is abstainers
I belong to the don't knows I

[gbnz]

Reality is a minority trying to undemocratically impose their wishes on the majority

Love the pun

Obviously that is the substance of royalty, the minority imposing their wishes on the majority without any reference to democracy.

[Tangled Metal]

Royalty doesn't impose anything on the majority. They're a figurehead only without serious power. Even the queen's speech is written for her. Not for some time have he monarch exercised power.

[Cyril Haearn]

But there are situations where she could have real power
The pope retired, the queen could do the same

[Cunobelin]

Reality is a minority trying to undemocratically impose their wishes on the majority

Love the pun

Obviously that is the substance of royalty, the minority imposing their wishes on the majority without any reference to democracy.

More irony....

Both Royalty and the ant-Royals are guilty of the same.

[ambodach]

I note that only one poster used the E2 title. The present incumbent is Elizabeth second of England only as Scotland was a separate country when England had an Elizabeth first. There was in the past a lot of animosity that a liner built in Clydebank was to be called Queen Elizabeth second. It ended up as QE2 as a sort of sop. I was at the launch and the television coverage broadcast was heavily edited to miss out the booing.

[iandriver]

So do you want to start at the top or bottom. A lot's been done to reduce hereditary peerages in the house of lords, a system the royals sit at the top of, but the mould is still there. A greatly reduced role and far fewer hangers on wouldn't do us any harm.