Could this be the end

M

Matesrates

Well-known member
Of the monarchy as we know it. The Queen was unique and universally respected. Many comments have been along the lines of, she’s always been there, we feel as if we know her. Actually, Charles has always been there as well and we know him, but will this embolden the republicans and countries who want to remove our monarch as head of state.

There will be the usual honeymoon period, but I think Charles will face some difficult decisions and may well have to accept significant changes.
 
The biggest problem for Charles is getting too involved we all know his feelings towards the climate for example if he starts trying to push his weight around with issues then it's hello Republicans.
 
Had a look yesterday and it seems there are only about 20ish per cent anti monarchy at the moment.
Quite a lot of don’t knows though and obviously these figures could shift under a new monarch.
I think they are pretty safe for now. Charles will need to play with a straight bat mind.
 
Charles has always come across as a bit of a chump.
Surprised he doesn't stand aside and let William take the reigns.
 
Doubt it, I’m not a royalist but the monarchy is popular, 66% support it versus 28% against it (remainder unsure). There isn’t a big demand to get rid of it and there aren’t any clear large benefits to remove it when you balance them against the benefits of keeping it.

If Charles keeps his head down and just follows his mum’s example I don’t see the popularity falling to a great degree any time soon. Only caveat is if Charles is more politically active as monarch and that causes some constitutional issues, whilst he’s opinionated I don’t think he’s daft enough to do that. Basically jeopardises his whole family.
 
With Charles now king, and William to follow I think the monarchy is probably in safe hands for the next 50 or so years. Neither are or will ever be as popular as the queen in my opinion, but they are steady hands who will be more than popular enough to ensure the country remains a monarchy.
 
poolseasider said:
The biggest problem for Charles is getting too involved we all know his feelings towards the climate for example if he starts trying to push his weight around with issues then it's hello Republicans.
Click to expand...
He's been espousing the cause of climate change for 50 years. Was he wrong?
 
There's no chance.

When politicians of all persuasions are distrusted and are figures of division, a monarch at least can represent all of us.

I used to prefer the idea of an elected head of state, but accident of birth which transcends division, will do for me and I guess most of the country.
 
Old_Laytonian said:
Australia will go their own way
Click to expand...
I'm sure the monarchy as head of state across the world will change (although it'll be interesting if they put it to a referendum) and I'd expect there will be very few left by the end of Charles' reign; but that's to be expected as society develops.

I just can't see the UK as a republic, a President Blair, Brown, Cameron, Major or May, is an awful thought.
 
Last edited:
TSSeasider said:
I'm sure the monarchy as head of state across the world will change (although it'll be interesting if they put it to a referendum) and I'd expect there will be very few left by the end of Charles' rein; but that's to be expected as society develops.

I just can't see the UK as a republic, a President Blair, Brown, Cameron, Major or May, is an awful thought.
Click to expand...
It is possible to have a partly ceremonial President with a full time Prime Minister - France.
 
I think much depends on how society changes over the next 5 years. I think there is a growing movement that wealth accumulation in the hands of a few is damaging society. There will be a backlash at the next election, but whether it "sticks" or not, I'm not sure. The Royals may get caught up in that, as we must not forget they are immensely wealthy, and some of them are pretty unpleasant individuals.

King Charles ( I am struggling not to add spaniel after I say that, sorry) must keep his council now, no more hand written notes to ministers, no briefing against Government policies. The Queens' greatest gift was her service, too many of the minor Royals see it as an opportunity to exploit.

I wish him well, the poor guy has just lost his Mum, pretty shattering for any of us, without his new pressures.
 
He has been the Queens understudy for 50 years and has done a fantastic job, apart from getting wed to Diana. Lets hopd we hsve 20 good more years out of him.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
I think much depends on how society changes over the next 5 years. I think there is a growing movement that wealth accumulation in the hands of a few is damaging society. There will be a backlash at the next election, but whether it "sticks" or not, I'm not sure. The Royals may get caught up in that, as we must not forget they are immensely wealthy, and some of them are pretty unpleasant individuals.

King Charles ( I am struggling not to add spaniel after I say that, sorry) must keep his council now, no more hand written notes to ministers, no briefing against Government policies. The Queens' greatest gift was her service, too many of the minor Royals see it as an opportunity to exploit.

I wish him well, the poor guy has just lost his Mum, pretty shattering for any of us, without his new pressures.
Click to expand...
Despite all you say, which is right, I'd guess that the biggest single decline of any one 'thing' measured regularly by public opinion polling is trust in politicians. While I could foresee some decline in support for the monarchy (surely at a long-time high right now), it has a looooong way to go to match the distrust and even hatred of politicians. For that reason, swapping to a presidential system over a monarchy seems no threat imo
 
1966_and_all_that said:
It is possible to have a partly ceremonial President with a full time Prime Minister - France.
Click to expand...
Well not for me….personally I trust in a system that has existed for 400 years and is enshrined as non political( it’s called the Supremacy of Parliament);……and certainly wouldn’t trust a system which is ultimately going to be politicised.
oh and France has a Political President and a Political Prime Minister and I bet if you asked most people who the ceremonial President is they wouldn’t have a clue…well I don’t and I can’t be bothered to Google to find out.Wonder how much tourism income he or she brings in🤔
 
Applelitic said:
Well not for me….personally I trust in a system that has existed for 400 years and is enshrined as non political( it’s called the Supremacy of Parliament);……and certainly wouldn’t trust a system which is ultimately going to be politicised.
oh and France has a Political President and a Political Prime Minister and I bet if you asked most people who the ceremonial President is they wouldn’t have a clue…well I don’t and I can’t be bothered to Google to find out.Wonder how much tourism income he or she brings in🤔
Click to expand...
The supremacy of Parliament is political. It also includes the Monarch as one of the three powers in Parliament.
 
Why do people always say we have to have a politician as head of state if we remove the monarchy?
 
gjr69 said:
Why do people always say we have to have a politician as head of state if we remove the monarchy?
Click to expand...
What are the other options? Every parliamentary democracy around the world has a head of state. It's nothing more than a formality these days, but the Royal Assent required to pass a law, theoretically would prevent a party coming into power and trying to rule as a dictatorship by maybe banning opposition parties or refusing to undertake elections. There's other checks and balances too in terms of historical law convention the supreme court etc, but those are very slow wheels of justice to turn and often not as watertight as they may seem. A head of state is more rock solid, so the argument goes anyway.
 
foggy said:
What are the other options? Every parliamentary democracy around the world has a head of state. It's nothing more than a formality these days, but the Royal Assent required to pass a law, theoretically would prevent a party coming into power and trying to rule as a dictatorship by maybe banning opposition parties or refusing to undertake elections. There's other checks and balances too in terms of historical law convention the supreme court etc, but those are very slow wheels of justice to turn and often not as watertight as they may seem. A head of state is more rock solid, so the argument goes anyway.
Click to expand...
I'm saying why does it have to be a politician, why can't it just be a decent high achieving UK national, that we vote for from a shortlist of such people.
Let's be honest if the person that is Charles 3 went up against his own son in a popularity contest he probably wouldn't win so is he the best person for the job?
The Royals could always throw their hat into the ring every 10 years or so when we were picking a new head of state, they could see how popular they are on their own merits, might be good for them to achieve something through their own efforts, if the nation picked them.
 
gjr69 said:
I'm saying why does it have to be a politician, why can't it just be a decent high achieving UK national, that we vote for from a shortlist of such people.
Let's be honest if the person that is Charles 3 went up against his own son in a popularity contest he probably wouldn't win so is he the best person for the job?
The Royals could always throw their hat into the ring every 10 years or so when we were picking a new head of state, they could see how popular they are on their own merits, might be good for them to achieve something through their own efforts, if the nation picked them.
Click to expand...
I get what you mean. Personall though, I think that if someone is running for public office by election, they have by definition become a politician. And are vulnerable to all the corruption and cronyism that comes with that.
 
foggy said:
I get what you mean. Personall though, I think that if someone is running for public office by election, they have by definition become a politician. And are vulnerable to all the corruption and cronyism that comes with that.
Click to expand...
So the alternative is to put the wealth and status that goes with the role into the hands of one family who have their own hangers on and interests for all eternity. Perpetuating the myth that some people are just born better and more deserving.
Which is the lesser of the two evils?
 
gjr69 said:
Why do people always say we have to have a politician as head of state if we remove the monarchy?
Click to expand...
Because rhe modern alternative to a monarchy is a Presidency. If a President is elected then, whatever the intention, it will become a politicised post.
 
gjr69 said:
So the alternative is to put the wealth and status that goes with the role into the hands of one family who have their own hangers on and interests for all eternity. Perpetuating the myth that some people are just born better and more deserving.
Which is the lesser of the two evils?
Click to expand...
Totally correct criticism of the monarchy and a question where I think being on either side is completely fair and rational. I would say that you could certainly get rid of probably 95% of the frivolity of the monarchy and we should. Give back stolen artificats and jewels from countries we colonised. Less of the 'long to reign over us' and more 'long to serve us' kind of sentiment. A hereditary system will always be unfair at the individual level of the royal family, but you could minimise it.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Because rhe modern alternative to a monarchy is a Presidency. If a President is elected then, whatever the intention, it will become a politicised post.
Click to expand...
I still think we could be more imaginative than it being a role occupied by politicians. That's what they've done elsewhere but it doesn't mean that we couldn't have a none politicised head of state.
Not going to happen though, the family is never going to give the job up and there is no appetite to ask them to leave. Although in my opinion the whole thing should be massively downsized.
 
gjr69 said:
I still think we could be more imaginative than it being a role occupied by politicians. That's what they've done elsewhere but it doesn't mean that we couldn't have a none politicised head of state.
Not going to happen though, the family is never going to give the job up and there is no appetite to ask them to leave. Although in my opinion the whole thing should be massively downsized.
Click to expand...
Good point. There is a discussion to be had about Monarchy v Republic. In the meantime there's a lot to be said for cutting out the masses of aristocratic nobodies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top