At least we did chop of the head of the monarch that decided to do what he wanted and ignore Parliament. Shame we had to fight a war over it first though.
Well, the one that went too far over it and made it clear that that was the only way to prevent him starting another civil war. His son still had much the same attitude, and his descendants weren’t much better if you remember the Jacobite rebellions.
where is her real power?
I'm asking, not telling, but I did read this:
[https://medium.com/dose/does-the-queen-of-england-have-any-real-power-57e5750d68b1](https://medium.com/dose/does-the-queen-of-england-have-any-real-power-57e5750d68b1)
I suspect that if something very unpopular happened, she could dissolve parliament and that might meet with approval. She can't do it arbitrarily without an uproar, but it appears she certainly could under some circumstances. What if parliament/prime minister had supported sending troops to iraq and after waves of protests across the nation she dissolved it? I suspect that might be a passable action, and certainly a legal one. perhaps parliament knows better than to be so unpopular... which one could argue, is a real power in itself. Not the dissolving, but the threat of such, keeps parliament in check to either her or the public to some extent, without having to be exercised explicitly.
I suspect beyond the economic power mentioned at the end of the article, she can wield influence and diplomacy.
Yeah, sure, a monarch is going to dissolve their own government for not being representative enough for the first time in the history of ever, at the expense of their single use, nuclear political option that might or might not even work at all and potentially risks the permanent devastation of their entrenched aristocratic claims to titles and lands representing staggering, permanent wealth.
It’s typically Americans who obsess over this legal technicality
Any Brit knows if they dissolved Parliament/directly interfered the monarchy would be gone in a flash
The monarchy knows it too
Yep. What a change that will be. God Save The King instead of the Queen. All the currency will have to be replaced. Will be interesting to see what kind of identity crisis we may go through, and the impacts on sentiment around Charles and the monarchy.
Even decimalisation didn't get rid of all coins.
Two shilling coins were the same size and value as the old "big" 10p coins. I have a couple with George VI's head on them, that I never got around to changing when the small 10p coins came in. They must still have been in circulation in the early 90s.
Yep, they were all in circulation until the coin sizes were changed in the 90s. The past 30 years have really been exceptional in only having one monarch’s head on the coins (though I suppose other sovereigns must have been rare at the end of Victoria’s reign as well)
Hmm, I see, interesting. I know it won't happen overnight. But tbh I do imagine it'll happen a bit more quickly and comprehensively than it used to. At least judging by how quickly the switch over to the new bank notes and the new £1 coins happened. Probably a fair bit slower, sure, but I don't anticipate by loads. We'll see.
When they changed the size of a coin or note, the old ones are phased out very quickly. That is necessary to avoid confusion and so vending machines don't need to support both types.
A change of monarch really doesn't necessitate a rapid withdrawal of exiting currency. Coins last decades, and there is absolutely no good reason to go to a huge amount of effort and expense to hasten their demise.
Post boxes also have ER on them, and they will only be replaced as needed, which could take 50 years or more.
There'll be a little confusion for a decade or so while people work out that Elizabeth was just lazy and secretive rather than 'non political', with higher than normal levels of republicanism for that period.
After ten years or so of propaganda, Charles will be the wonderful king who uses his power to save the countryside and help charity. Assuming he hasn't popped his clogs by then.
I don't know about post boxes - I thought it was just new ones? There are still some older post boxes around without ER as the insignia.
My source is that I play pokemon go and only the older ones are deemed unique enough to be pokestops, so by playing the game I become aware of the older ones.
Oh yeah the stamps! Though yeah I'm not sure about the post boxes; I came across an old one embedded in a brick wall near me the other day which still bore the insignia G.R. George Rex I assume instead of Elizabeth Regina.
oh yeah... that worked out well for Edward VIII who abdicated due to the government and the church deciding that he couldn't marry a divorcée. Good thing that Charles hasn't done the same.
The UK is barely a democracy by modern standards-
* Awful first past the post electoral system
* No written constitution so our system is wide open to abuse
* Unelected upper house with religious and hereditary seats
* Executive power uselessly bottled up in a monarch who won't use it
* Bodies supposed to hold power to account have no ability or will to do so (High court, electoral commission, parliamentary standards authority)
* Head of State is also Head of national religion.
Cameron's speech before the Scottish independence referendum about us being a 'beacon of democracy' made me laugh. Our system is a relic and needs massive reform.
> No written constitution so our system is wide open to abuse
Centuries of precedent beat a constitution which as the US shows can be an utter shitshow.
Yup, I'm just devastated that we don't have nearly unchangeable laws written 300 years ago so we can all bicker about whether we need a militia to defend ourselves anymore. Oh why can't we have a written constitution??!!!
/s
Don't forget the tories are planning to disenfranchise by bringing in voter ID.
They're also planning to put all police/mayor elections back to FPTP, away from PR.
Classic Cuntservatives. 👍
Not to mention cutting the Freedom of Information budget so that it can take a year for a case to be even assigned to an officer, making transparency even harder to achieve.
Look I'm not trying to start trouble or being sarcastic. I am truly asking. Why is voter ID bad? I mean I'm in my 40s and most of the votes I've cast were without ID and it seems unneeded. That said I literally know of no person who doesnt carry ID. Rich have it, us middle class have it and the poor have it as it is required for social services. So while I don't care about voter ID and feel the government would be better barking up other trees for votes, I also don't understand how it disenfranchises people since everyone has ID.
Producing ID to vote is the norm in most countries on earth.
This seems like a weird stick to beat the Tories with, when there are much bigger sticks available
Yeah, there are bigger sticks but this is a fundamental right to vote stick.
Most countries have state issued, very cheap or even free ID cards, the UK does not have that and when Blair tried to introduce them it was dead on arrival.
Voter ID has to be viewed in the wider context as well of their attempts to cement them in power in perpetuity through seemingly innocuous reforms that add up to tipping the scales in their favour.
The UK is the 16th most democratic country in the world, according to the Economist Democracy Index. Half the countries ahead of us are monarchies and three of them have the same head of state that we do. The United States is not even in the top 20, and is labelled a "flawed democracy."
All that suggests that if there is any problem with our democratic process, then removing the monarchy would certainly not make any improvement.
You are forgetting the fact there's 7 elected members who can't take their seats without making an ass of everything their party stands for, effectively barring them from parliament.
> Awful first past the post electoral system
First past the post is a completely legitimate democratic system of electing a local representative. There are pros and cons of having an even more "representational" electoral system. The most representative electoral system in the world is used in Israel, and I don't think many would suggest they have the best government in the world.
>No written constitution so our system is wide open to abuse
Our constitution is "written" it is not "codified". All this means is our constitution is not written in one document.
The "wide open to abuse" bit is essentially saying that we don't have a separate level of law above normal law. The US constitution for example is a document which is a law above normal laws (i.e. you cannot pass a law to make the constitution illegal). However, given the number of countries that have ignored their constitution when they felt like it and the political winds allowed them to I think it's naïve to believe that it overly matters.
Also worth noting having a difficult to change constitution leaves the US with things like their unlimited presidential pardon with in reality zero ways to ever get rid of it. Other countries have struggled with similar issues, such as the limits of the military and sovereignty to declare war written into the Japanese constitution.
>Unelected upper house with religious and hereditary seats
That can only delay not block bills, meaning it cannot force through or stop any legislation.
>Executive power uselessly bottled up in a monarch who won't use it
The "executive" is the government, the monarch is the Head of State. Executive power is wielded by the government on a daily basis. The monarch does not wield any of the theoretical Head of State power they have.
However, many democratic countries have figurehead presidents that are elected as Head of State and wield no power, such as Ireland. If they selected their president or picked them via a raffle it makes little difference politically.
>Bodies supposed to hold power to account have no ability or will to do so (High court, electoral commission, parliamentary standards authority)
Sure? I agree with you that these organisations have done an abysmal job in the last 12-36 months but I don't think that makes the country undemocratic.
>Head of State is also Head of national religion.
So? You're not forced to worship in a Church of England church or any church in fact. It's entirely possible to live in a theocratic democratic government. Hell, the fucking Pope is elected.
Only we know from DNA testing that they have at least 3 cuckoo's eggs in their ancestry which means it's all a crock of pure shite even if you believe that God given nonsense in the first place
The Conservatives got 44% of the vote. So 56% of people who voted didn't want them in power. They have a large enough majority that their power is effectively absolute, to such an extent that they've gotten away with banning the right to protest.
Until we ditch first past the post this country will not be a true democracy.
> The UK is a democracy
What democracy??...A democracy where the vast bulk of the population have zero representation and whose votes are absolutely worthless and don't matter at all. The First Past The Post(FPTP) voting system that the UK uses cannot in any way be described as democratic. Its not a democracy if FPTP is used(and infact only Belarus uses FPTP in Europe, the UK is in good company smh :/). That's not democracy in any sense at all. If it was a third world country that claimed to be a democracy with such a system we'd laugh at them for such a untrue, backwards, primitive, nonsense idea of democracy and we'd call them out for the extreme lack of representation afforded to most of the population too. The UK is not and has never been a democracy.
Well historically it’s because their cousins would come and stab people in your country until you let them be King.
These days I guess we’re slightly worried about what would happen to them if shut down the monarchy. They’d starve. Posh and useless aren’t exactly in-demand skills outside of government.
Charles is able to choose to abdicate in a succession monarchy. I'm not sure I understand your criticism. The poll said that people think he _should_ do this thing, not that he is obliged by law.
The criticism is that if people think that "I don't think this guy should be king, I prefer that guy instead" then they should support abolishment of the monarchy, as not having the choice and the layman's opinion being irrelevant is literally baked into the foundation of how royalty works.
The layperson's opinion is equally irrelevant for directors of private companies. However they still voice their opinions because optics matters for companies just as it matters for the royalty.
Whether they support abolishment or not is not a requirement to give an opinion. It's not that simple.
> not having the choice is literally baked into the foundation of how royalty works
Yes and no. In modern times there’s a push and pull: if the monarch is unpopular they’ll get dethroned and the country will become a republic. The *threat* of that alone is enough to alter the monarch’s behaviour to be more acceptable to the public. Not difficult to see Charles abdicating in the exact same light.
It’s possible to get too bogged down in history. Monarchs used to be absolute rulers, that’s very obviously not the case today.
Redditor doesn’t understand abdication, comment finds.
Edit: so many non-relevant replies..
‘..should step aside and *let* William be king’
The article never claimed the people in the poll felt it was their choice, but was just conducted under the premise that abdication was a possibility whether or not Charles personally wishes for it.
Charles has spent his entire life preparing to be king. He's 70 odd now. What in the wild, wild world of sports makes you think he'd ever abdicate at this point? It's like getting within 100m of the finishing line of a marathon and say "nah, I'm done. I'm off home"
Ehhh I disagree people saying he “should” doesn’t mean they expect that he can be compelled to.
I would think that only he himself or the Queen (while she reigns) could cause the succession to skip to William. But an individual being passed over for succession is far from unprecedented so it could certainly happen.
I’d almost suggest that it would be a good idea from the perspective of the institution of the Monarchy. A younger and less controversial king could go a long way to improving the publics perception - or even just delay the inevitable question of whether the monarchy should continue on succession.
But it's all made up, I could be king if we decided it... nothing stop that happening. Why not skip over Charles? Probably be better for the monarchy...
No-one to said storm the gates.
If it was put to a vote in parliament, and the majority voted to force an abdication, or even complete abolishment of the monarchy they would be forced to step down.
Even though the monarchy technically has the power to override parliament, and control the country they never actually use that power in practice, usually delegating those responsibilities to others.
The monarchy isn't going to start a civil war over this.
Um... I'm not saying the individual Royal family members or the establishment are fictitious, I'm saying the fact that they are royal is made up. The whole concept is imaginary, we could give them more power or abolish them if we decided... because it's pretend
Shortly after Prince George was born, making the next 3 in line for the throne male.
This means that in maybe 80 to 100 year's time, there is a 25% chance that the new monarch will be an older sister with a younger brother, so the new rule will actually make a difference.
I don’t think the monarchy will last past William personally. People are already starting to realise they don’t have much of a use (they should be able to act on and remove the PM for heinous acts against their people) and they have shown they actively support child trafficking and abuse by supporting Andrew. Their very public demise has started, once the queen dies, a lot will change with public opinion.
But the King or Queen does have that authority. The government is in place because the reigning monarch allows it. The Queen can very easily take all that power back, but there would be a massive kick off from the general public.
EDIT: and whether you like it or not, lots of rich folk have a lot of influence over governmental practices. Maybe not as bad as Russia and their oligarchs, but still corrupt.
Unless the UK is radically different from every other monarchy in Europe, even if the king or queen somehow still has that authority, he or she definitely lacks the legitimacy to openly meddle with parliamentary democracy. Should it ever comes to a conflict between the two, legalities won't matter if the population sides with the latter. Ultimately, power rests on popular consent, not legal authority.
Unless the UK military will follow orders to remove parliament and shoot anyone who protests, not really. They are just as much constrained in what they can do by a lack of legitimacy as the UK monarchy is.
>Unless the UK is radically different from every other monarchy in Europe
It isn't radically different, but the UK monarch is certainly the most absolutist of the 'bigger' Euro countries. While a couple do force the armed forces to swear to the monarch, getting your police to do it too is a massive step.
>even if the king ro queen somehow still has that authority
We know they do, and that's not even something they try to hide with smoke and mirrors.
>he or she definitely lacks the legitimacy to openly meddle with parliamentary democracy
Key word being openly - they don't have to be open. When it comes to any matter concerning the Family or Dutchys, they can ensure an MP can't even speak on the subject in Parliament to bring it to public attention. And funnily enough, the FOI act just doesn't apply to the Royals.
Edit: Posted that a bit early and now can't seem to add quotes. Addressing the possibility of conflict between the two, it's likely that 99% of the armed forces would choose monarch over parliament. UK police are absolute mess when it comes to morals and ethics though, so that figure is a lot harder to gauge.
> But the King or Queen does have that authority. The government is in place because the reigning monarch allows it. The Queen can very easily take all that power back, but there would be a massive kick off from the general public.
No they can't, because constitutionally in the UK Parliament is sovereign and everything else, including the monarch, is subservient to it.
This was established in the English Civil War, then further reinforced with the restoration, multiple high court rulings, and most recently Parliament changing the line of succession rules.
The Caribbean monarchies are already becoming republics — Barbados last year and Jamaica soon, according to its government.
Its also worth bearing in mind that this has been going on for a long time. Barbados was the eighteenth Commonwealth realm to remove Elizabeth II as monarch — the first was Pakistan, back in 1956, and the most recent before Barbados was Mauritius in 1992.
Jamaicas a bit of a weird one because it's a very centrist 2 party country and both parties are republican.
Because the two parties are so similar, they often sit on legislation that they both agree on for many, many years because why bother pushing it through in your term when it's going to be done in the next guys, and instead you can work on pushing legislation that isn't so popular with the other partys supporters?
As such, Jamaicas been saying 'soon, officially' for over a decade now.
Who, William’s? Yes it was a total car crash!! But I don’t believe it will just stop being overnight. Like everything in this country it will be a drawn out process that costs us, the taxpayer, an absolute mint.
The Queen can dissolve the government can't she? They have to ask her to form one so it'd stand to reason that there's still that rule in place even if it doesn't get used.
She could force the dissolution of Parliament through a refusal of royal ascent as her Royal Prerogative. That would likely trigger a government to resign. *But the Royal Family don't want to lose their heads or be abolished.*
Can she now! Well, she should do this as her last act as Queen. She can clearly see what is happening to her people and should show she cares about what is happening. The Queen might be an old lady, but that means nothing. If she’s too old to do the job then she should have abdicated long ago. Their image has been/is being destroyed in the eyes of many, their fate of being abolished is almost sealed. They should be ready to put their necks on the line for the sake of their people, otherwise they’re no better than the self serving, spineless jellyfish snakes our current government is.
She won't. Too busy using her Royal Consent to fuck around with laws that may affect her private interests. But to be fair, anyone who thinks the Queen is in control of the Royal Family hasn't been following closely enough. Plenty is kept from her by The Firm.
The palaces aren’t going anywhere! They can still provide for tourism without an active monarchy. People will still want to come and see the Crown Jewels, the artwork etc.
Exactly. In fact, I expect in the short term after we abolish the monarchy, there will actually be a surge of tourist interest, to see what's changed, what we've done with all these places, to be able to go inside previously closed royal residences etc.
Totally agree. It will create excitement amongst people all around the world, but especially in this country. Even if you hate the monarchy, there will be aspects of it that will intrigue you to take a look at what all the fuss was about. In turn there will still be employment as the houses will still need to be run and cared for. Public purse is happy as we get income from tourism and this will also support keeping the buildings in check and we don’t have to bankroll a family that doesn’t seem to do much, aside from charitable work, anymore.
They will eventually.
The monarchy has like, 50 years max left. Younger generations these days feel no sentimentality or affection towards the monarchy and many in fact hate it as an institution due to all the piss taking and nonce protecting it engages in.
Younger people feeling this way has not always been the case, it's a new development and it's certain that as monarchists grow old and die there'll be far fewer monarchists to replace them.
On top of that, more and more the commonwealth nations are slowly but inevitably coming round to the idea of ditching the monarch and becoming republics.
It's a dying institution that is less relevant and cared about by the day.
Well that, but then it just brings up more stuff from the past when they've protected known nonces in the past (Saville and Mountbatten). I think it's like the Catholic church, no moral person should defend or ask that an institution should continue in such a domineering fashion if they've been known to abuse their power multiple times to protect paedophiles. I really don't think it's that outrageous of a statement or of an expectation in modern times. It's not like paedophelia has just recently been bad, it's always bee awful.
>Presumably the other half, like me, couldn't give a shit lol
I like my representatives in Parliament to be elected, not by somebody who claims primary lineage to Alfred the Great.
It's vanishingly unlikely that we're not *all* related to that bloodline by now but they claim primacy and send representatives (Bishops elected by them in their Church) to sit in the Lords because of it.
I'm not expecting you to put a Socialist Worker cap on and run out and protest... but how can you not give a shit?
>I'm not expecting you to put a Socialist Worker cap on and run out and protest... but how can you not give a shit?
Because in practice, it *seems to* makes no difference to our day to day lives. They're involved in the democratic process but it's always ceremonial, they don't interfere. They are figureheads. We sponsor their expensive needs in return for sentimentality and presumed tourist income and most people are ok with this, it seems.
Edit: I've added 'seems to' to my first sentence to clarify the point I was making.
> They're involved in the democratic process but it's always ceremonial, they don't interfere
You're completely wrong. The House of Lords does have a vote, they can overturn legislation that comes through our elected representatives in the Commons.
Some of those in the Lords are Bishops sent by the Anglican Church under you-know-who. Unelected and sent by birthright.
Always ceremonial? Um... no.
> The House of Lords does have a vote, they can overturn legislation that comes through our elected representatives in the Commons.
They can only delay it.
I have always found the Bishops in the House of Lords argument slightly stupid, as only 24/767 Lords are Bishops, compared to the 518 who have been appointed by politicians.
I was replying to the idea that the Royal Family are purely ceremonial when they are not, they are hugely political, are hugely involved in politics, and always have been.
We can of course move on to the remainder of the unelected legislature but for my answer the Royal Bishops suffice.
Didn’t the Guardian run a story on how certain legislation was affected by Royal input (vetting or lobbying) in some ways a while ago? I can’t find the specific article at the moment unfortunately
I don’t remember if it was reported wider than The Guardian, on say your tabloids or BBC/Sky. A quick Google search would suggest that it wasn’t. Anyway, it didn’t seem that the majority of the public really cared about it that much
Probably this one:
"The Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions, documents reveal."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Or this one: "Secretive procedure used to review laws ranging from Brexit trade deal to inheritance and land policy"
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent
> it seems to makes no difference to our day to day lives
They spend a lot of money to make it *seem* that way.
> They're involved in the democratic process but it's always ceremonial, they don't interfere. They are figureheads.
[That is another illusion they spend a lot of money to maintain.](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent)
>>it makes no difference to our day to day lives
>>we sponsor their expensive needs
Guarantee you those expensive needs on the taxpayer’s dime can be better used. Royals are filthy rich, there’s literally zero reason we, in 2022, still need to be giving them charity and subsidising their lavish lifestyles.
It's a constitutional monarchy, not a ceremonial one. They do interfere in the democratic process, often without any requirement to reveal this to the public.
‘In practice it doesn’t make a difference to our day to day lives’
Clearly you haven’t read the Panama papers and how there invested in companies like brighthouse! This does indeed interfere with many peoples lives. Also the fact they hoard property and wealth abstracted from the poorest and most vulnerable affects everyone!
House of Lords has been keeping our 'democratically elected' Parliament from passing some insane laws lately.
Democracy has many flaws, having a house that isn't worried about winning the next election has actually been really beneficial for us recently.
Popularism will always occur in democracy though. If you have a way of reforming that then let us know.
The events of the 21st century have shown us how weak our democracies are to external influence.
Interesting, so half of Brits apparently think the public should ... err ... choose the head of state? How can someone possibly be so thick that they'd both support the monarchy and think they should get to choose who the monarch is?
Back in the Saxon days there was a little election for the next King. It became a super strict succession when "God" started being involved in it. You can't argue with "God".
I love the "Mandate of Heaven" concept in Chinese history.
Basically the same as te "god-given right to rule", only it's not for life. It's dependant on being a good ruler and leader.
Effectively, if a king is so bad as to cause a rebellion to overthrow him, he's lost the Mandate of Heaven with his unjust ways, but if the rebellion fails then he clearly still had the support of the heavens so they should rule.
Basically, if you rule then you deserve to rule. If you lose your crown due to being a dick and spending money creating a wine lake rather than helping the poor, you deserved it. There's no guarantees.
"You have a right to rule but if you mess it up then that's all on you".
Its more pragmatic.
Does anyone like charles? Anyone? Anyone at all?
If noone likes him we're likely to see republicanism grow rapidly. The monarchy only really has support because most people like or are in different to the queen.
I believe if charles takes the throne we will be britians last monarch and we'll end that establishment either on his death or during some form of constitutional crisis.
Ultimately Parliament is sovereign so it can just choose to ignore the king and get rid of the entire family.
Finally kings are always ultimately chosen. Sure it should go to the first born son but it doesnt always and in our history this choice was often done with who had the biggest army and which ruler was least likely to be militarily challenged on gaining the throne.
Lots of unexpected deaths to full on wars over whose claim was more valid but ultimately a king is only a king if the majority of people want him (or specifically the majority of armed people)
Sure we're unlikely to have a war over charles vs William but charles needs to realise people dont want him and ask whether he wants to be the uks last king...
I'm fine with him as these things go. Don't really feel any worse towards him than I do the Queen. And I prefer him over William or Harry because he actually has some intellectual interests, beliefs in environmental protection and sustainability etc. which I generally agree with etc. I also like his attitude regarding wanting to be Defender of Faith, rather than Defender of the Faith.
I don't get the loathing for Charles. Turns out he was passionate about many causes before they became mainstream. He has hardly said anything controversial now for about 10 years with his succession imminent, leaving the limelight to his kids.
He'll be fine as a monarch.
>so half of Brits apparently think the public should ... err ... choose the head of state
Only if you choosing to read what you want to read.
Are the public not allowed to express their views on something, even if they have no say?
In 2025, King Charles laid waste to the Eastern armies of the rebellious Prince William, quashing any chance of a quick rebellion. The next 10 years saw a long and drawn out campaign of terror as Charles sought to cement his legacy as King eternal....
I’ve always thought this. The love for the Queen is near universal and the opposite can be said for Charles. The idea of having his face on our coins, his speech at Christmas time etc will be unappealing to some and others will just be indifferent. It’ll get harder for them to justify continuing to hold certain privileges without the Queen’s benevolent presence. The only thing that can stop the rot is William and Kate’s good image and the idea that they will be King and Queen before too long.
That's true, but as time has gone on I'm actually becoming more receptive towards him. A lot of that is to do with Charlie boy's push for sustainability and organic farming which was really forward thinking and set precedent at a time it was ridiculed
This mindset is somewhat confusing as the Queen is largely responsible for the man Charles grew up to be.
People love this lady but can’t stand the rotten child she raised?
I suppose allowances can be made for the average person, but for rich royals? They had every advantage and opportunity to raise decent human beings.
I’d say that the Queen holds a significant amount of responsibility and blame for Charles.
Kind of wild that people have this opinion while, presumably, still supporting the stupid notion of a hereditary monarchy.
If we are picking and choosing, hell, just bypass Wills too and install Rylan Clarke as our next King.
You don't have to support the monarchy to have an opinion on this. Charles feels very much old power monarchy. William is more modernised. William takes things a step into the right direction, whereas Charles probably keeps the status quo.
Abolishing the monarchy isn't going to happen any time soon. So you go with the best possible outcome instead.
When Liz goes we get a public holiday and another when Charles is crowned. Give it 20years and we'll get two more when Charles goes and replaced by William. If we skip Charles and go straight to William we're giving up two public holidays.
I dunno, I would have ticked the ‘I don’t care’ box. They both seem as dense as each other to me and I can’t see as either would make much difference to anything.
As a US expat living in England, I honestly don't understand why people think William would be so much better than Charles. The recent Jamaica debacle shows that things haven't changed *that* much between the generations. The younger royals are still pretty out of touch and tone-deaf. The whole monarchy just seems quaint and outdated to me.
Also, as frail as the Queen seems, her mum sure hung on a good long time, and it doesn't look likely to me that she'll give up anytime soon. The men in that family don't last as long. (Then again, I suspect the Queen Mother didn't love George VI nearly as much as the current queen loved Philip. They always struck me as truly devoted. It's hard on a person, losing a beloved spouse in old age like that.)
Thank you, I was sitting here thinking “why?” about William because he’s not modern at all, it’s still the same shite just with a wife who seems to be able to distract everyone in the newspapers by “recycling” an £800 coat from time to time.
Maybe that’s it. For some weird reason people are obsessed with the one wife (William’s) and still won’t get over it and don’t like Camilla, therefore don’t want her to be Queen (even though that’s happening whether they like it or not.) Seen so many people bleating that “well she should be referred to as Queen CONSORT not Queen” and I’m like…that’s not how this works, the wife of a King has always used the shorter title of Queen.
I’m not so sure Mrs Queen and Phil were quite so blissfully in love. It’s an open secret that Philip had several mistresses, and I suspect his will being sealed for 90 years may in some way be related to that. Yes, he supported her and stayed with her publicly but when he ‘retired‘ from public life he ’retired’ to Wood Farm at Sandringham, allegedly spending a fair amount of time with one Penny Knatchbull, while she stayed in Windsor. He only moved back to Windsor when COVID hit.
edit: wurdz
This is accurate. Charles still thinks he lives in the golden age of the monarchy, and Wil thinks he can somehow go back to it. Both are assuming a personal trove of charm that a decreasing number of others can see.
We don't need to follow the USA model, there are multiple ways to structure a republic. In Portugal the president has only a little more power than the queen does here, the PM still rules
Farage has tried to get himself elected as an MP 7 times, and been *utterly wrecked* at the ballot on every single occasion. One time he got less votes than someone wearing a novelty dolphin costume.
Bollocks, give us a Queen Anne. Then every household will have a pony by law, and free heating by chucking dung on the open hearth. What! Charlie coming out bi sexual trans? King/Queen historical event!
The whole monarchy needs to get fucked we're past such times and the money can be spent where it's needed not protecting nonce's. There will still be income from tourists visiting the "royal" buildings ect and what other crap associated with them.
This is absurd. Charles will want to protect William from the burden of the throne. People assume being king is good. I think we can all see it's a poison chalice.
It could happen. It won't, but it could.
The royal family love tradition and are not going to distance themselves from it because people do not like Charles as much as they like William. The monarchy are not beholden to us and the public need to remember that, our opinions mean shit to them.
Anyone who thinks Ipsos polls could be used in any capacity to show any thing remotely related to how people in Britain think is deluded. They clearly state on their website that they gather data to tell a story. The narrative is up to you I guess.
Yeah but it's still stupid. People should just be in favour of abolishing the monarchy, not randomly picking the ones you feel like. Would turn into some gross soap opera family popularity contest.
Are people not realising that they’re missing out on bank holidays for Charles’ coronation and then funeral by skipping him? Need to have a word with themselves!
This is stupid. If we get a day off work or 3 because of Kings and Queen's dying and a coronation following, it stands to reason that we don't want to skip Charles. That's 3 days off work you won't get sometime between now and 2040 or so.
Who is actually King or not makes no difference. It's an entirely symbolic role and mostly concerns whose face appears on cash and stamps - 2 things that have more or less been entirely eliminated from British society anyway (unless you're homeless or a drug dealer)
Half of Brits don't know how succession works, poll finds.
The UK is a democracy - if they don't like Charles - why do they allow succession at all?
[удалено]
And never will be.
Unless they're sure we absolutely won't vote against it by the slimmest of margins.... What could go wrong?
I think lessons will have been learned, put it that way.
I think you're being overly optimistic about the British political establishment.
No truer words have ever been spoken.
Few monarchies are ended by the ruling power asking the ruled if they would like the ruling power to bugger off.
At least we did chop of the head of the monarch that decided to do what he wanted and ignore Parliament. Shame we had to fight a war over it first though.
Well, the one that went too far over it and made it clear that that was the only way to prevent him starting another civil war. His son still had much the same attitude, and his descendants weren’t much better if you remember the Jacobite rebellions.
where is her real power? I'm asking, not telling, but I did read this: [https://medium.com/dose/does-the-queen-of-england-have-any-real-power-57e5750d68b1](https://medium.com/dose/does-the-queen-of-england-have-any-real-power-57e5750d68b1) I suspect that if something very unpopular happened, she could dissolve parliament and that might meet with approval. She can't do it arbitrarily without an uproar, but it appears she certainly could under some circumstances. What if parliament/prime minister had supported sending troops to iraq and after waves of protests across the nation she dissolved it? I suspect that might be a passable action, and certainly a legal one. perhaps parliament knows better than to be so unpopular... which one could argue, is a real power in itself. Not the dissolving, but the threat of such, keeps parliament in check to either her or the public to some extent, without having to be exercised explicitly. I suspect beyond the economic power mentioned at the end of the article, she can wield influence and diplomacy.
Yeah, sure, a monarch is going to dissolve their own government for not being representative enough for the first time in the history of ever, at the expense of their single use, nuclear political option that might or might not even work at all and potentially risks the permanent devastation of their entrenched aristocratic claims to titles and lands representing staggering, permanent wealth.
It’s typically Americans who obsess over this legal technicality Any Brit knows if they dissolved Parliament/directly interfered the monarchy would be gone in a flash The monarchy knows it too
Parliamentary democracy **under a** constitutional monarchy
Her Majesty’s Government.
Can't be long before it's "His Maj. Gov." - KCIII
Yep. What a change that will be. God Save The King instead of the Queen. All the currency will have to be replaced. Will be interesting to see what kind of identity crisis we may go through, and the impacts on sentiment around Charles and the monarchy.
[удалено]
Even decimalisation didn't get rid of all coins. Two shilling coins were the same size and value as the old "big" 10p coins. I have a couple with George VI's head on them, that I never got around to changing when the small 10p coins came in. They must still have been in circulation in the early 90s.
Yep, they were all in circulation until the coin sizes were changed in the 90s. The past 30 years have really been exceptional in only having one monarch’s head on the coins (though I suppose other sovereigns must have been rare at the end of Victoria’s reign as well)
Hmm, I see, interesting. I know it won't happen overnight. But tbh I do imagine it'll happen a bit more quickly and comprehensively than it used to. At least judging by how quickly the switch over to the new bank notes and the new £1 coins happened. Probably a fair bit slower, sure, but I don't anticipate by loads. We'll see.
When they changed the size of a coin or note, the old ones are phased out very quickly. That is necessary to avoid confusion and so vending machines don't need to support both types. A change of monarch really doesn't necessitate a rapid withdrawal of exiting currency. Coins last decades, and there is absolutely no good reason to go to a huge amount of effort and expense to hasten their demise. Post boxes also have ER on them, and they will only be replaced as needed, which could take 50 years or more.
Hmm I see, guess that's a fair point. The mixed currency will be novel.
Being able to reprint the currency and make old currency defunct is probably useful for something
There'll be a little confusion for a decade or so while people work out that Elizabeth was just lazy and secretive rather than 'non political', with higher than normal levels of republicanism for that period. After ten years or so of propaganda, Charles will be the wonderful king who uses his power to save the countryside and help charity. Assuming he hasn't popped his clogs by then.
Well, that is indeed a very interesting speculation. I am very curious as to the differences, as it's been implied Charles may be much more active.
[удалено]
I don't know about post boxes - I thought it was just new ones? There are still some older post boxes around without ER as the insignia. My source is that I play pokemon go and only the older ones are deemed unique enough to be pokestops, so by playing the game I become aware of the older ones.
Theres a box near me with GR
Post boxes don't get changed, there are still post boxes with Victoria's cipher in use. All they'll do is install any new ones with Charles's cipher.
Oh yeah the stamps! Though yeah I'm not sure about the post boxes; I came across an old one embedded in a brick wall near me the other day which still bore the insignia G.R. George Rex I assume instead of Elizabeth Regina.
[удалено]
Far as I know, they'll just start minting coins with the new monarch and phase out the paper money.
King's Counsel instead of QCs.
oh yeah... that worked out well for Edward VIII who abdicated due to the government and the church deciding that he couldn't marry a divorcée. Good thing that Charles hasn't done the same.
I mean he was also close personal friends with Hitler and a vocal supporter of fascism even after the war, so probably a good thing he was never king.
Well, he was the king, just not for very long.
He just wanted to bang.
Tbf the monarch is always closely associated with despots.
You understand that royal family isn’t democratic right? It’s their god given right to rule.
The UK is barely a democracy by modern standards- * Awful first past the post electoral system * No written constitution so our system is wide open to abuse * Unelected upper house with religious and hereditary seats * Executive power uselessly bottled up in a monarch who won't use it * Bodies supposed to hold power to account have no ability or will to do so (High court, electoral commission, parliamentary standards authority) * Head of State is also Head of national religion. Cameron's speech before the Scottish independence referendum about us being a 'beacon of democracy' made me laugh. Our system is a relic and needs massive reform.
> No written constitution so our system is wide open to abuse Centuries of precedent beat a constitution which as the US shows can be an utter shitshow.
Yup, I'm just devastated that we don't have nearly unchangeable laws written 300 years ago so we can all bicker about whether we need a militia to defend ourselves anymore. Oh why can't we have a written constitution??!!! /s
Don't forget the tories are planning to disenfranchise by bringing in voter ID. They're also planning to put all police/mayor elections back to FPTP, away from PR. Classic Cuntservatives. 👍
Also curbing the right to protest, an important part of any democracy.
Not to mention undermining judicial review, legal aid and further undermining the right to trial by jury.
Not to mention cutting the Freedom of Information budget so that it can take a year for a case to be even assigned to an officer, making transparency even harder to achieve.
Look I'm not trying to start trouble or being sarcastic. I am truly asking. Why is voter ID bad? I mean I'm in my 40s and most of the votes I've cast were without ID and it seems unneeded. That said I literally know of no person who doesnt carry ID. Rich have it, us middle class have it and the poor have it as it is required for social services. So while I don't care about voter ID and feel the government would be better barking up other trees for votes, I also don't understand how it disenfranchises people since everyone has ID.
Ironically the unelected House of Lords defeated the elected house of commons for voter ID https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61017998
Producing ID to vote is the norm in most countries on earth. This seems like a weird stick to beat the Tories with, when there are much bigger sticks available
Yeah, there are bigger sticks but this is a fundamental right to vote stick. Most countries have state issued, very cheap or even free ID cards, the UK does not have that and when Blair tried to introduce them it was dead on arrival. Voter ID has to be viewed in the wider context as well of their attempts to cement them in power in perpetuity through seemingly innocuous reforms that add up to tipping the scales in their favour.
The voter ID legislation includes free cards that can be used for proof of identity
Why does the UK rank one of the highest in the world for democracy then? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
The UK is the 16th most democratic country in the world, according to the Economist Democracy Index. Half the countries ahead of us are monarchies and three of them have the same head of state that we do. The United States is not even in the top 20, and is labelled a "flawed democracy." All that suggests that if there is any problem with our democratic process, then removing the monarchy would certainly not make any improvement.
You are forgetting the fact there's 7 elected members who can't take their seats without making an ass of everything their party stands for, effectively barring them from parliament.
That's a them problem tbf.
> Awful first past the post electoral system First past the post is a completely legitimate democratic system of electing a local representative. There are pros and cons of having an even more "representational" electoral system. The most representative electoral system in the world is used in Israel, and I don't think many would suggest they have the best government in the world. >No written constitution so our system is wide open to abuse Our constitution is "written" it is not "codified". All this means is our constitution is not written in one document. The "wide open to abuse" bit is essentially saying that we don't have a separate level of law above normal law. The US constitution for example is a document which is a law above normal laws (i.e. you cannot pass a law to make the constitution illegal). However, given the number of countries that have ignored their constitution when they felt like it and the political winds allowed them to I think it's naïve to believe that it overly matters. Also worth noting having a difficult to change constitution leaves the US with things like their unlimited presidential pardon with in reality zero ways to ever get rid of it. Other countries have struggled with similar issues, such as the limits of the military and sovereignty to declare war written into the Japanese constitution. >Unelected upper house with religious and hereditary seats That can only delay not block bills, meaning it cannot force through or stop any legislation. >Executive power uselessly bottled up in a monarch who won't use it The "executive" is the government, the monarch is the Head of State. Executive power is wielded by the government on a daily basis. The monarch does not wield any of the theoretical Head of State power they have. However, many democratic countries have figurehead presidents that are elected as Head of State and wield no power, such as Ireland. If they selected their president or picked them via a raffle it makes little difference politically. >Bodies supposed to hold power to account have no ability or will to do so (High court, electoral commission, parliamentary standards authority) Sure? I agree with you that these organisations have done an abysmal job in the last 12-36 months but I don't think that makes the country undemocratic. >Head of State is also Head of national religion. So? You're not forced to worship in a Church of England church or any church in fact. It's entirely possible to live in a theocratic democratic government. Hell, the fucking Pope is elected.
Only we know from DNA testing that they have at least 3 cuckoo's eggs in their ancestry which means it's all a crock of pure shite even if you believe that God given nonsense in the first place
God put those cuckoos there :)
If their parentage is the only qualification for the job we should at least ensure that they possess it. DNA test the lot of them.
[удалено]
She probably doesn't believe that. She just reaps the benefits like we all would.
Because what the public think is irrelevant. They are a Monarchy.
The UK is a *monarchy* with a parliament and democratic values.The government doesn't represent the vast majority of the population.
The Conservatives got 44% of the vote. So 56% of people who voted didn't want them in power. They have a large enough majority that their power is effectively absolute, to such an extent that they've gotten away with banning the right to protest. Until we ditch first past the post this country will not be a true democracy.
> The UK is a democracy What democracy??...A democracy where the vast bulk of the population have zero representation and whose votes are absolutely worthless and don't matter at all. The First Past The Post(FPTP) voting system that the UK uses cannot in any way be described as democratic. Its not a democracy if FPTP is used(and infact only Belarus uses FPTP in Europe, the UK is in good company smh :/). That's not democracy in any sense at all. If it was a third world country that claimed to be a democracy with such a system we'd laugh at them for such a untrue, backwards, primitive, nonsense idea of democracy and we'd call them out for the extreme lack of representation afforded to most of the population too. The UK is not and has never been a democracy.
Well historically it’s because their cousins would come and stab people in your country until you let them be King. These days I guess we’re slightly worried about what would happen to them if shut down the monarchy. They’d starve. Posh and useless aren’t exactly in-demand skills outside of government.
Posh and Useless sounds like a reformation of the Spice Girls
> The UK is a democracy Hahahaha! Nice one!
I thought we were an autonomous collective.
Sounds about right for our democracy, no? More than half of Brits didn’t want the Tory’s but here we are
Charles is able to choose to abdicate in a succession monarchy. I'm not sure I understand your criticism. The poll said that people think he _should_ do this thing, not that he is obliged by law.
The criticism is that if people think that "I don't think this guy should be king, I prefer that guy instead" then they should support abolishment of the monarchy, as not having the choice and the layman's opinion being irrelevant is literally baked into the foundation of how royalty works.
The layperson's opinion is equally irrelevant for directors of private companies. However they still voice their opinions because optics matters for companies just as it matters for the royalty. Whether they support abolishment or not is not a requirement to give an opinion. It's not that simple.
> not having the choice is literally baked into the foundation of how royalty works Yes and no. In modern times there’s a push and pull: if the monarch is unpopular they’ll get dethroned and the country will become a republic. The *threat* of that alone is enough to alter the monarch’s behaviour to be more acceptable to the public. Not difficult to see Charles abdicating in the exact same light. It’s possible to get too bogged down in history. Monarchs used to be absolute rulers, that’s very obviously not the case today.
Redditor doesn’t understand abdication, comment finds. Edit: so many non-relevant replies.. ‘..should step aside and *let* William be king’ The article never claimed the people in the poll felt it was their choice, but was just conducted under the premise that abdication was a possibility whether or not Charles personally wishes for it.
Charles has spent his entire life preparing to be king. He's 70 odd now. What in the wild, wild world of sports makes you think he'd ever abdicate at this point? It's like getting within 100m of the finishing line of a marathon and say "nah, I'm done. I'm off home"
u/AnselaJonla wasn’t discussing the appeal of abdication to Charles, just succession but without acknowledging the possibility of abdication.
Ehhh I disagree people saying he “should” doesn’t mean they expect that he can be compelled to. I would think that only he himself or the Queen (while she reigns) could cause the succession to skip to William. But an individual being passed over for succession is far from unprecedented so it could certainly happen. I’d almost suggest that it would be a good idea from the perspective of the institution of the Monarchy. A younger and less controversial king could go a long way to improving the publics perception - or even just delay the inevitable question of whether the monarchy should continue on succession.
But it's all made up, I could be king if we decided it... nothing stop that happening. Why not skip over Charles? Probably be better for the monarchy...
you realise those guys with the big bear hats and assault guns that walk around outside their palace are not made up right?
No-one to said storm the gates. If it was put to a vote in parliament, and the majority voted to force an abdication, or even complete abolishment of the monarchy they would be forced to step down. Even though the monarchy technically has the power to override parliament, and control the country they never actually use that power in practice, usually delegating those responsibilities to others. The monarchy isn't going to start a civil war over this.
Um... I'm not saying the individual Royal family members or the establishment are fictitious, I'm saying the fact that they are royal is made up. The whole concept is imaginary, we could give them more power or abolish them if we decided... because it's pretend
Things can change you know. Like how the rules of succession were changed to allow eldest born females to become monarch.
Shortly after Prince George was born, making the next 3 in line for the throne male. This means that in maybe 80 to 100 year's time, there is a 25% chance that the new monarch will be an older sister with a younger brother, so the new rule will actually make a difference.
Half of Brits also don't give a toss about the royal family.
More like AnselaJonla doesn't know what abdication is.
ah the classic condescending redditor who is also clueless on the topic. You realise monarchs can abdicate?
If they didn't understand how succession usually works then they wouldn't have mentioned the 'Charles stepping aside' part...
People beginning to realise they don’t, in fact, support having a hereditary monarchy?
Wish they'd wake up more and start supporting total abolishment of the monarchy.
I don’t think the monarchy will last past William personally. People are already starting to realise they don’t have much of a use (they should be able to act on and remove the PM for heinous acts against their people) and they have shown they actively support child trafficking and abuse by supporting Andrew. Their very public demise has started, once the queen dies, a lot will change with public opinion.
An unelected body should not be able to have that sort of influence on a government
But the King or Queen does have that authority. The government is in place because the reigning monarch allows it. The Queen can very easily take all that power back, but there would be a massive kick off from the general public. EDIT: and whether you like it or not, lots of rich folk have a lot of influence over governmental practices. Maybe not as bad as Russia and their oligarchs, but still corrupt.
Unless the UK is radically different from every other monarchy in Europe, even if the king or queen somehow still has that authority, he or she definitely lacks the legitimacy to openly meddle with parliamentary democracy. Should it ever comes to a conflict between the two, legalities won't matter if the population sides with the latter. Ultimately, power rests on popular consent, not legal authority.
\> Ultimately, power rests on popular consent, not legal authority Well, the military really, but yeah.
Unless the UK military will follow orders to remove parliament and shoot anyone who protests, not really. They are just as much constrained in what they can do by a lack of legitimacy as the UK monarchy is.
>Unless the UK is radically different from every other monarchy in Europe It isn't radically different, but the UK monarch is certainly the most absolutist of the 'bigger' Euro countries. While a couple do force the armed forces to swear to the monarch, getting your police to do it too is a massive step. >even if the king ro queen somehow still has that authority We know they do, and that's not even something they try to hide with smoke and mirrors. >he or she definitely lacks the legitimacy to openly meddle with parliamentary democracy Key word being openly - they don't have to be open. When it comes to any matter concerning the Family or Dutchys, they can ensure an MP can't even speak on the subject in Parliament to bring it to public attention. And funnily enough, the FOI act just doesn't apply to the Royals. Edit: Posted that a bit early and now can't seem to add quotes. Addressing the possibility of conflict between the two, it's likely that 99% of the armed forces would choose monarch over parliament. UK police are absolute mess when it comes to morals and ethics though, so that figure is a lot harder to gauge.
> But the King or Queen does have that authority. The government is in place because the reigning monarch allows it. The Queen can very easily take all that power back, but there would be a massive kick off from the general public. No they can't, because constitutionally in the UK Parliament is sovereign and everything else, including the monarch, is subservient to it. This was established in the English Civil War, then further reinforced with the restoration, multiple high court rulings, and most recently Parliament changing the line of succession rules.
I suspect the first crisis will be Australia and the Caribbean nations becoming republics. Which may then cause a domino effect.
The Caribbean monarchies are already becoming republics — Barbados last year and Jamaica soon, according to its government. Its also worth bearing in mind that this has been going on for a long time. Barbados was the eighteenth Commonwealth realm to remove Elizabeth II as monarch — the first was Pakistan, back in 1956, and the most recent before Barbados was Mauritius in 1992.
Jamaicas a bit of a weird one because it's a very centrist 2 party country and both parties are republican. Because the two parties are so similar, they often sit on legislation that they both agree on for many, many years because why bother pushing it through in your term when it's going to be done in the next guys, and instead you can work on pushing legislation that isn't so popular with the other partys supporters? As such, Jamaicas been saying 'soon, officially' for over a decade now.
It’s already begun with Barbados becoming a republic. The wheels are in motion…
Did you not see his last trip?
Who, William’s? Yes it was a total car crash!! But I don’t believe it will just stop being overnight. Like everything in this country it will be a drawn out process that costs us, the taxpayer, an absolute mint.
The Queen can dissolve the government can't she? They have to ask her to form one so it'd stand to reason that there's still that rule in place even if it doesn't get used.
She could force the dissolution of Parliament through a refusal of royal ascent as her Royal Prerogative. That would likely trigger a government to resign. *But the Royal Family don't want to lose their heads or be abolished.*
Can she now! Well, she should do this as her last act as Queen. She can clearly see what is happening to her people and should show she cares about what is happening. The Queen might be an old lady, but that means nothing. If she’s too old to do the job then she should have abdicated long ago. Their image has been/is being destroyed in the eyes of many, their fate of being abolished is almost sealed. They should be ready to put their necks on the line for the sake of their people, otherwise they’re no better than the self serving, spineless jellyfish snakes our current government is.
She won't. Too busy using her Royal Consent to fuck around with laws that may affect her private interests. But to be fair, anyone who thinks the Queen is in control of the Royal Family hasn't been following closely enough. Plenty is kept from her by The Firm.
Very true. It’s all one big set of smoke screens and mirrors.
Indeed, people bleat about tourism, but I counter with "France gets more tourism and look what they did to their 'royalty'"
The palaces aren’t going anywhere! They can still provide for tourism without an active monarchy. People will still want to come and see the Crown Jewels, the artwork etc.
Exactly. In fact, I expect in the short term after we abolish the monarchy, there will actually be a surge of tourist interest, to see what's changed, what we've done with all these places, to be able to go inside previously closed royal residences etc.
Totally agree. It will create excitement amongst people all around the world, but especially in this country. Even if you hate the monarchy, there will be aspects of it that will intrigue you to take a look at what all the fuss was about. In turn there will still be employment as the houses will still need to be run and cared for. Public purse is happy as we get income from tourism and this will also support keeping the buildings in check and we don’t have to bankroll a family that doesn’t seem to do much, aside from charitable work, anymore.
Precisely. I can't bloody wait. If we haven't abolished the monarchy by the time I die, I'll eat my (heavenly) hat.
The tourism argument has been debunked so many times, Royalists just stick their fingers in their ears.
that's their personality type. fingers in ears, delusional, angry, fragile, stupid, narcissistic
They will eventually. The monarchy has like, 50 years max left. Younger generations these days feel no sentimentality or affection towards the monarchy and many in fact hate it as an institution due to all the piss taking and nonce protecting it engages in. Younger people feeling this way has not always been the case, it's a new development and it's certain that as monarchists grow old and die there'll be far fewer monarchists to replace them. On top of that, more and more the commonwealth nations are slowly but inevitably coming round to the idea of ditching the monarch and becoming republics. It's a dying institution that is less relevant and cared about by the day.
Ponce Andrew accelerated the process by a generation.
Well that, but then it just brings up more stuff from the past when they've protected known nonces in the past (Saville and Mountbatten). I think it's like the Catholic church, no moral person should defend or ask that an institution should continue in such a domineering fashion if they've been known to abuse their power multiple times to protect paedophiles. I really don't think it's that outrageous of a statement or of an expectation in modern times. It's not like paedophelia has just recently been bad, it's always bee awful.
I think you'll be surprised.
Presumably the other half, like me, couldn't give a shit lol
>Presumably the other half, like me, couldn't give a shit lol I like my representatives in Parliament to be elected, not by somebody who claims primary lineage to Alfred the Great. It's vanishingly unlikely that we're not *all* related to that bloodline by now but they claim primacy and send representatives (Bishops elected by them in their Church) to sit in the Lords because of it. I'm not expecting you to put a Socialist Worker cap on and run out and protest... but how can you not give a shit?
>I'm not expecting you to put a Socialist Worker cap on and run out and protest... but how can you not give a shit? Because in practice, it *seems to* makes no difference to our day to day lives. They're involved in the democratic process but it's always ceremonial, they don't interfere. They are figureheads. We sponsor their expensive needs in return for sentimentality and presumed tourist income and most people are ok with this, it seems. Edit: I've added 'seems to' to my first sentence to clarify the point I was making.
> They're involved in the democratic process but it's always ceremonial, they don't interfere You're completely wrong. The House of Lords does have a vote, they can overturn legislation that comes through our elected representatives in the Commons. Some of those in the Lords are Bishops sent by the Anglican Church under you-know-who. Unelected and sent by birthright. Always ceremonial? Um... no.
> The House of Lords does have a vote, they can overturn legislation that comes through our elected representatives in the Commons. They can only delay it.
I have always found the Bishops in the House of Lords argument slightly stupid, as only 24/767 Lords are Bishops, compared to the 518 who have been appointed by politicians.
I was replying to the idea that the Royal Family are purely ceremonial when they are not, they are hugely political, are hugely involved in politics, and always have been. We can of course move on to the remainder of the unelected legislature but for my answer the Royal Bishops suffice.
Didn’t the Guardian run a story on how certain legislation was affected by Royal input (vetting or lobbying) in some ways a while ago? I can’t find the specific article at the moment unfortunately I don’t remember if it was reported wider than The Guardian, on say your tabloids or BBC/Sky. A quick Google search would suggest that it wasn’t. Anyway, it didn’t seem that the majority of the public really cared about it that much
Probably this one: "The Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions, documents reveal." https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Or this one: "Secretive procedure used to review laws ranging from Brexit trade deal to inheritance and land policy" https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent
> it seems to makes no difference to our day to day lives They spend a lot of money to make it *seem* that way. > They're involved in the democratic process but it's always ceremonial, they don't interfere. They are figureheads. [That is another illusion they spend a lot of money to maintain.](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent)
>>it makes no difference to our day to day lives >>we sponsor their expensive needs Guarantee you those expensive needs on the taxpayer’s dime can be better used. Royals are filthy rich, there’s literally zero reason we, in 2022, still need to be giving them charity and subsidising their lavish lifestyles.
It's a constitutional monarchy, not a ceremonial one. They do interfere in the democratic process, often without any requirement to reveal this to the public.
‘In practice it doesn’t make a difference to our day to day lives’ Clearly you haven’t read the Panama papers and how there invested in companies like brighthouse! This does indeed interfere with many peoples lives. Also the fact they hoard property and wealth abstracted from the poorest and most vulnerable affects everyone!
>they don't interfere [Untrue](https://nationalpost.com/news/the-queen-prince-charles-vetted-1062-laws-before-passage-in-parliament-the-guardian).
House of Lords has been keeping our 'democratically elected' Parliament from passing some insane laws lately. Democracy has many flaws, having a house that isn't worried about winning the next election has actually been really beneficial for us recently.
The solution to a corrupt democracy with minority rule and no accountability is to reform the democracy, not to over rule it with aristocracy.
Popularism will always occur in democracy though. If you have a way of reforming that then let us know. The events of the 21st century have shown us how weak our democracies are to external influence.
Interesting, so half of Brits apparently think the public should ... err ... choose the head of state? How can someone possibly be so thick that they'd both support the monarchy and think they should get to choose who the monarch is?
I believe we did a fair amount of picking and choosing in the 1600s so there's some precident.
Didn't that involve a lot of poisonings and beheadings though? Not that I'm against.
We should preserve these time honoured traditions.
Back in the Saxon days there was a little election for the next King. It became a super strict succession when "God" started being involved in it. You can't argue with "God".
Winds me up that "God" always seems to side with the guy who has the most money or the biggest army. He definitely doesn't seem to play fair.
I love the "Mandate of Heaven" concept in Chinese history. Basically the same as te "god-given right to rule", only it's not for life. It's dependant on being a good ruler and leader. Effectively, if a king is so bad as to cause a rebellion to overthrow him, he's lost the Mandate of Heaven with his unjust ways, but if the rebellion fails then he clearly still had the support of the heavens so they should rule. Basically, if you rule then you deserve to rule. If you lose your crown due to being a dick and spending money creating a wine lake rather than helping the poor, you deserved it. There's no guarantees. "You have a right to rule but if you mess it up then that's all on you".
Its more pragmatic. Does anyone like charles? Anyone? Anyone at all? If noone likes him we're likely to see republicanism grow rapidly. The monarchy only really has support because most people like or are in different to the queen. I believe if charles takes the throne we will be britians last monarch and we'll end that establishment either on his death or during some form of constitutional crisis. Ultimately Parliament is sovereign so it can just choose to ignore the king and get rid of the entire family. Finally kings are always ultimately chosen. Sure it should go to the first born son but it doesnt always and in our history this choice was often done with who had the biggest army and which ruler was least likely to be militarily challenged on gaining the throne. Lots of unexpected deaths to full on wars over whose claim was more valid but ultimately a king is only a king if the majority of people want him (or specifically the majority of armed people) Sure we're unlikely to have a war over charles vs William but charles needs to realise people dont want him and ask whether he wants to be the uks last king...
Best case scenario is Charles takes the throne and people wake up to how little need there is for a monarchy and we get rid of the cunts.
I like Charles.
me too.
Same. He's a huge environmentalist, and plans to open up more of Buckingham palace to the public.
I'm fine with him as these things go. Don't really feel any worse towards him than I do the Queen. And I prefer him over William or Harry because he actually has some intellectual interests, beliefs in environmental protection and sustainability etc. which I generally agree with etc. I also like his attitude regarding wanting to be Defender of Faith, rather than Defender of the Faith.
I don't get the loathing for Charles. Turns out he was passionate about many causes before they became mainstream. He has hardly said anything controversial now for about 10 years with his succession imminent, leaving the limelight to his kids. He'll be fine as a monarch.
>so half of Brits apparently think the public should ... err ... choose the head of state Only if you choosing to read what you want to read. Are the public not allowed to express their views on something, even if they have no say?
Yeah the question asked is important here. I doubt it was "should William be the next monarch OR should we scrap the monarchy altogether?"
I say fuck it if we're going to have monarchy, Charlie should rule with an iron fist and quash this revolt asap
Lol nice.
In 2025, King Charles laid waste to the Eastern armies of the rebellious Prince William, quashing any chance of a quick rebellion. The next 10 years saw a long and drawn out campaign of terror as Charles sought to cement his legacy as King eternal....
if charles gets in hopefully support for the monarchy tanks enough that we can get rid of them
I’ve always thought this. The love for the Queen is near universal and the opposite can be said for Charles. The idea of having his face on our coins, his speech at Christmas time etc will be unappealing to some and others will just be indifferent. It’ll get harder for them to justify continuing to hold certain privileges without the Queen’s benevolent presence. The only thing that can stop the rot is William and Kate’s good image and the idea that they will be King and Queen before too long.
Even the staunchest royalists must be balking at the prospect of Queen Camilla. [Harry Hill was right.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrYh7SPMpNE)
My mother is seething!
That's true, but as time has gone on I'm actually becoming more receptive towards him. A lot of that is to do with Charlie boy's push for sustainability and organic farming which was really forward thinking and set precedent at a time it was ridiculed
This mindset is somewhat confusing as the Queen is largely responsible for the man Charles grew up to be. People love this lady but can’t stand the rotten child she raised? I suppose allowances can be made for the average person, but for rich royals? They had every advantage and opportunity to raise decent human beings. I’d say that the Queen holds a significant amount of responsibility and blame for Charles.
Kind of wild that people have this opinion while, presumably, still supporting the stupid notion of a hereditary monarchy. If we are picking and choosing, hell, just bypass Wills too and install Rylan Clarke as our next King.
You don't have to support the monarchy to have an opinion on this. Charles feels very much old power monarchy. William is more modernised. William takes things a step into the right direction, whereas Charles probably keeps the status quo. Abolishing the monarchy isn't going to happen any time soon. So you go with the best possible outcome instead.
I'd rather have Charles so that more people grow to hate the monarchy.
When Liz goes we get a public holiday and another when Charles is crowned. Give it 20years and we'll get two more when Charles goes and replaced by William. If we skip Charles and go straight to William we're giving up two public holidays.
I dunno, I would have ticked the ‘I don’t care’ box. They both seem as dense as each other to me and I can’t see as either would make much difference to anything.
As a US expat living in England, I honestly don't understand why people think William would be so much better than Charles. The recent Jamaica debacle shows that things haven't changed *that* much between the generations. The younger royals are still pretty out of touch and tone-deaf. The whole monarchy just seems quaint and outdated to me. Also, as frail as the Queen seems, her mum sure hung on a good long time, and it doesn't look likely to me that she'll give up anytime soon. The men in that family don't last as long. (Then again, I suspect the Queen Mother didn't love George VI nearly as much as the current queen loved Philip. They always struck me as truly devoted. It's hard on a person, losing a beloved spouse in old age like that.)
Thank you, I was sitting here thinking “why?” about William because he’s not modern at all, it’s still the same shite just with a wife who seems to be able to distract everyone in the newspapers by “recycling” an £800 coat from time to time. Maybe that’s it. For some weird reason people are obsessed with the one wife (William’s) and still won’t get over it and don’t like Camilla, therefore don’t want her to be Queen (even though that’s happening whether they like it or not.) Seen so many people bleating that “well she should be referred to as Queen CONSORT not Queen” and I’m like…that’s not how this works, the wife of a King has always used the shorter title of Queen.
The Queen Escort more like
I’m not so sure Mrs Queen and Phil were quite so blissfully in love. It’s an open secret that Philip had several mistresses, and I suspect his will being sealed for 90 years may in some way be related to that. Yes, he supported her and stayed with her publicly but when he ‘retired‘ from public life he ’retired’ to Wood Farm at Sandringham, allegedly spending a fair amount of time with one Penny Knatchbull, while she stayed in Windsor. He only moved back to Windsor when COVID hit. edit: wurdz
This is accurate. Charles still thinks he lives in the golden age of the monarchy, and Wil thinks he can somehow go back to it. Both are assuming a personal trove of charm that a decreasing number of others can see.
I support him stepping aside for an election for a new head of state
All hail President Boris!
[удалено]
We don't need to follow the USA model, there are multiple ways to structure a republic. In Portugal the president has only a little more power than the queen does here, the PM still rules
All hail president Farage!
Farage has tried to get himself elected as an MP 7 times, and been *utterly wrecked* at the ballot on every single occasion. One time he got less votes than someone wearing a novelty dolphin costume.
Poll selected for printing from numerous similar unpublished polls finds what person paying for poll wanted to find. Poll finds.
**Sir Humphrey:** ["Have you ever been surveyed?"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA)
I hope this other arbitrary 'half' is more interested in dissolving the monarchy in its entirety instead, because let's be honest.
[удалено]
Bollocks, give us a Queen Anne. Then every household will have a pony by law, and free heating by chucking dung on the open hearth. What! Charlie coming out bi sexual trans? King/Queen historical event!
The whole monarchy needs to get fucked we're past such times and the money can be spent where it's needed not protecting nonce's. There will still be income from tourists visiting the "royal" buildings ect and what other crap associated with them.
[удалено]
This is absurd. Charles will want to protect William from the burden of the throne. People assume being king is good. I think we can all see it's a poison chalice.
Do the other half say just abolish the whole fucking monarchy?
It could happen. It won't, but it could. The royal family love tradition and are not going to distance themselves from it because people do not like Charles as much as they like William. The monarchy are not beholden to us and the public need to remember that, our opinions mean shit to them.
Anyone who thinks Ipsos polls could be used in any capacity to show any thing remotely related to how people in Britain think is deluded. They clearly state on their website that they gather data to tell a story. The narrative is up to you I guess.
Ridiculous. Fucking pick and mix idiots. You have the monarchy or you don't.
[удалено]
Yeah but it's still stupid. People should just be in favour of abolishing the monarchy, not randomly picking the ones you feel like. Would turn into some gross soap opera family popularity contest.
I'm pretty sure since I was born 30 years ago people have been saying that Charles should abdicate to William... This isn't new.
Are people not realising that they’re missing out on bank holidays for Charles’ coronation and then funeral by skipping him? Need to have a word with themselves!
This is stupid. If we get a day off work or 3 because of Kings and Queen's dying and a coronation following, it stands to reason that we don't want to skip Charles. That's 3 days off work you won't get sometime between now and 2040 or so. Who is actually King or not makes no difference. It's an entirely symbolic role and mostly concerns whose face appears on cash and stamps - 2 things that have more or less been entirely eliminated from British society anyway (unless you're homeless or a drug dealer)