Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

The future of the British monarchy after QE?

  • 14-11-2021 12:03pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 21,971 ✭✭✭✭ Kermit.de.frog


    What, do you reckon, is the future of the UK monarcy after Queen Elizabeth?

    She is missing events at the moment due to ill health which is leading to speculation over how ill she may be.

    You'd have to be very churlish not to acknowledge she handles the position with dignity and has been seen to be somewhat removed from the chaos that often accompanies the rest of the family. Her reaction to Diana aside she has been an exemplary representative.

    But do you think British attitudes to the monarchy may change more when she is gone?

    My own opinion is that it very well might because she was always kind of seen as an aloof rock of stability in the monarchy.

    What happens when that's gone?

    Time will tell but what do you reckon?

    Is the very future of the monarchy in doubt?



«134

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,818 ✭✭✭✭ Danzy


    She has come to dominate the brand, even become the brand. Given that she is dying, slowly maybe, the risk is that little is left after her demise.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,845 ✭✭✭ Xander10


    The world won't stop turning.

    They will carry on as a tourist attraction.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,986 ✭✭✭✭ Loafing Oaf


    Dunno, there's a kind inertia to the situation, I'd say it would take something like the Abdication Crisis to push them into changing their system.

    Charles isn't wildly popular but I think most people recognise he is a sincere guy, plus his reign likely won't last long.

    I'd say if Brit republicans could observe our farcial presidential elections up close for a few days they'd run screaming back to their constitutional monarchy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,020 ✭✭✭✭ Timberrrrrrrr


    When Liz passes (and I think it will be soon) then Charles will take over, I give him five years in the job just to show a steady hand at the controls before he steps aside and allows William to take the reins for the next few decades.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,717 ✭✭✭ screamer


    Embattled whilst they try to prove that Brexit is a success, the brits will cling to the monarchy for the nostalgia of “Great” Britain and so I don’t believe their monarchy is in jeopardy from the public.

    I had long thought Lizzie would abdicate in favour of Wills, and give it a chance to modernise, however she’s far too much of an old guard figure to have such radical ideas. Charles has shown he takes what he wants regardless the consequences, and he’s waited over 70 years for that crown.

    It will actually take for the royals themselves to say no more, we don’t want this life for their monarchy to end. Don’t see that happening for at least the next 2 generations anyways.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,818 ✭✭✭✭ Danzy


    I think that's likely.


    The one thing that is certain is that every option will have been looked at and planned on for years



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,986 ✭✭✭✭ Loafing Oaf


    I don't want a say over who occupies the purely ceremonial role of head of state, if we need to have one at all. I wish there was another way of doing it like sortition or nomination by something like the Council of State. Remember how De Valera treated the Governor General's office: picked some randomer who lived in the Dublin suburbs and was barely seen in public, just did the minimum required by the job; that would be my ideal presidency.



  • Registered Users Posts: 57,092 ✭✭✭✭ FrancieBrady


    You'd be happier in a monarchy. Good luck with that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,401 ✭✭✭ Chinese whospers


    QE11 is going nowhere soon. The vast majority of the Brits love her. She's adored by sections of NI. Also, she's as Stoic as they come and will be Queen for another 5-10 years, even if her public duties drastically decline. Charles (no spring Chicken himself) will step in as deputy, as he does currently.

    And don't expect a dashing Queen Consort Kate on the throne anytime soon. That's 20_25 years off.

    Incidentally, the same people who adore her in NI will hold their nose when Charles becomes their King. But, they'll do what they do best... suck it up.

    I’m in love with him and I feel fine.

    ^^^ although, I’m okay with getting back to winning ways, Jurgen.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,781 ✭✭✭ Rawr


    It would be a wise move to do that, however I wonder if we're going to see a period of time where the British Monarch is going always be elderly. If Charles lives as long as his parents have, William will be pretty old by the time he gets his turn...and so on...

    George VI was relatively young when he died (56) and that was after years of being a very popular war-time King. Then handing over to a very young Elizabeth gave the British monarchy a boost that it think it managed to ride all of these decades since. Passing the Throne between elderly men for the next 50-odd years might not help its survival.

    I also feel that Liz's end is near. I fully expect my news apps to explode with notifications in the middle of the night one day within the next year, if not soon after that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,986 ✭✭✭✭ Loafing Oaf


    A very scaled back monarchy, shorn of all the Windsors' flummery; yeah, I'd be happy with that. Haven't looked into it too much but some of the Scandinavian countries might be closer to my ideal of how it would work.



  • Registered Users Posts: 37,538 ✭✭✭✭ Itssoeasy


    I think the future is Charles will become king when his mother clocks off. She won’t abdicate because she made a promise on radio when she turned 21 to do the job for life. And there is little to no chance of Charles passing it to William because he’s the longest reigning(?) Prince of wales and he wants his turn.


    The British royal family has an extra generation where the other European royal families have young monarchs with young heirs(majority of them female) and the Europeans monarchies seem okay to abdicate, such as the Dutch queens since the early 20th century have done.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,818 ✭✭✭✭ Danzy


    She is dying, that's happening now.


    The monarchy is an essential part of English identity and will continue to be, especially working class English identity.

    Lot of people never understood that or why.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,405 ✭✭✭✭ elperello


    Short to medium term the monarchy is in good shape and will continue.

    Long term probably safe enough too barring some unforeseen catastrophic event.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,781 ✭✭✭ Rawr


    Over here in Norway, the monarchy is pretty minimal compared to the British version. There's a King, his head is on the coins, but apart from the National Day and a handful of other things you barely ever hear about him or his not-so-large family. Also the Norwegian royals are mostly self-financed with a couple of farms they run.

    Very much a low-hassle ceremonial figurehead for the state who rubber stamps government acts a-politically. Seems to work very well for them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 468 ✭✭ Shao Kahn


    Sounds like they're completely unnecessary and things would function perfectly fine without them then?

    The Brits have Princess Charles, who will slot neatly into the spot when queen lizard-breath pops her clogs!

    I always thought they should have got a good taxidermist to stuff lady die, and roll her out for special occasions.

    I mean, would you really notice any difference? Most monarchs are practically inanimate objects anyway. They make some pointless public address, that is carefully crafted to mean nothing and offend no-one. You could just put an empty suit of armor next to them with a pre-recorded tape, and it would get the job done just as well. 😄

    "Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives, and it puts itself into our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." (John Wayne)



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,760 ✭✭✭ NickNickleby


    not a fan, then? 😁

    I'm no fan of any monarchy myself, prefer an elected Head of State. But I wouldn't care if the office was abolished tomorrow.

    As for the British Monarchy, I think they really love their Royal Family and it will continue to exist. I suspect the opinion will be that once the Queen dies, sure its about time poor old Charles had a go. He'd probably be a safe pair of hands as he's totally non-controversial. Then the golden couple will step up to the mark and be beloved by all. So I don't think the British monarchy is in any danger.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,986 ✭✭✭✭ Loafing Oaf


    But doesn't the same go for a purely ceremonial elected president of our type? Most countries seem to find a need for someone at the top of the pyramid to sign the bills and cut the ribbons and all that, however they are chosen.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,650 ✭✭✭ JoChervil


    I worry about her health. I noticed that people always die no more than 2 weeks apart from significant family members. My parents died 1 and 2 days from my DOB.


    Prince Philip died on April 9th, while Queen'a DOB is 21st of April. Today is Prince Charles' birthday. I wouldn't be surprised if we hear bad news soon.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 24 Mirafiori


    I don't think it is within her gift to pass the monarchy directly to William. That could only happen if, either before or upon her abdication, Charles declined the throne. Maybe that is what you meant - if so, apologies.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,401 ✭✭✭ Chinese whospers


    What do you mean she is dying? If you are her physician you're breaking a plethora of rules divulging seriously private medical info.

    If you mean, she's a 95 year old woman and beyond a normal lifespan... Her mother lived to be 101. Elizabeth will get the VERY best medicine can offer. I wouldn't be going out buying a mourning suit any time soon. A sore back... and you're writing her off?! I see another 5 years easy - and I wouldn't bet against her outliving Charles.

    The working class in the UK are the least influential class, and are rule takers rather than makers. The working class have the most vested in the monarchy, they need that to feel 'great' as in 'Great Britain' - it makes living in a council flat all the more bearable I imagine. But, I don't disagree, I think the UK royals will be there at the end of the 21st century. Do I think they'll be there in 2/3 hundred years. Probably not, imho.

    I’m in love with him and I feel fine.

    ^^^ although, I’m okay with getting back to winning ways, Jurgen.



  • Registered Users Posts: 57,092 ✭✭✭✭ FrancieBrady


    There has been a huge shift in the space of 5 years in how the young think on this, with 41% favouring an elected head of state. I can only see that growing as we move into an era of Charles and a line of males succeeding to the throne. Also, if Charles succeeds with drive to ensure Camilla is called the Queen, support will go off a cliffedge.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,020 ✭✭✭✭ Timberrrrrrrr


    Camilla will never be called Queen because she won't be a queen, same as Phillip was never called king.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,401 ✭✭✭ Chinese whospers


    There's a difference. You can have a Queen consort, but you cannot have a King consort... how do I know this stuff 😄

    I’m in love with him and I feel fine.

    ^^^ although, I’m okay with getting back to winning ways, Jurgen.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,020 ✭✭✭✭ Timberrrrrrrr


    Camilla would become "princess consort" not queen camilla.



  • Registered Users Posts: 57,092 ✭✭✭✭ FrancieBrady


    If reports are to be believed Charles is trying.

    It's an arbitrary system Timber, which can be changed. There is no such thing as royal/blue blood, you do know this I hope?



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,401 ✭✭✭ Chinese whospers


    I think princess consort would be the more acceptable. BUT, she COULD be (and Charles will want) Queen Consort. Whether he gets his wish is another story. I think the UK public have been coming around to Camilla. I think the Crown series showed her in a good light.

    I’m in love with him and I feel fine.

    ^^^ although, I’m okay with getting back to winning ways, Jurgen.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,986 ✭✭✭✭ Loafing Oaf


    Seems to me animosity towards CPB has faded over time. I'd say most people have come to accept that she is the woman Charles should have been married to all along and that she, Charles and Diana were victims of outmoded attitudes in the Royal Family. Would many people really care that much if she is called Queen?



Advertisement