Quantcast

Fall of the british royal family?

incogneato

No face, no case.
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
396,407
Reaction score
Reactions
2,689,563 494,995 222,880
2,889,473
Alleybux
668,824
I don’t think the monarchy is going to fall anytime soon. Taxpayers pay so little for their upkeep and it seems like most people don’t see the moral issue in having royalty who are supposedly appointed by god. Plus it seems like too much work to get rid of them. Just my thoughts though. I do see the common wealth countries coming to their senses and saying peace out, at some point.
 

MsFitRightIn

General Manager
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
1,063
Reaction score
Reactions
18,461 249 102
19,959
Alleybux
8,000
Even if the BRF doesn’t “fall” over the next decade or so, I predict they will see a steady decline in popularity which may eventually lead to people wondering why they should bother keeping them around. The older generations, who are more invested in a royal family, will die out leaving the younger generations, who don’t appear to care as strongly. I suspect that when QE2 dies, the gloves are gonna come off regarding the press and all those skeletons they kept buried deep in the closet, out of respect for her, will come bursting out to wreck havoc on the images of many of the family members. More people will start to question the relevance of having a royal family who they support through tax dollars and who essentially have a “get out of jail free” card for life, merely because of the family they were born into.
 

LolaBea

Never argue w someone Harriet would've left behind
Joined
Jan 6, 2016
Messages
48,280
Reaction score
Reactions
541,461 5,941 1,428
572,462
Alleybux
24,500
The family has fallen as has the institution. Poorly run with no room for innovation, smooth adaptation, too dependent on the unprofessional UK media, stuck in time with no decision to join the rest of us who are the majority.

We see them constantly "reinventing" themselves but the reinvention does not last and they slip right back to the start. Sure they are a distraction but as we are seeing in actual dire situations they are a nuisance and part of the problem. Someone mentioned them being in crisis mode and that's exactly it. The tourism industry can say they had a direct hit from COVID but what can royals say? They are in the best position to give instead of offering words of encouragement.

When you become neutralized to the point where citizens step up including a 99 year old retired vet an a 23 year old footballer and do more for the nation than those who claim bring goodwill aka royal family, that says a lot. Even louder is when Captain Tom was being knighted and it didn't make a huge splash they thought it would. His actual tangible contribution meant more to the public than him receiving knighthood, despite his many years of spreading goodwill.

Royals need to stop snapping up trends they need to become the trend and not in the negative way they constantly are. They can start by giving Andrew to the authorities and not accepting any government assistance. They need to start becoming self sufficient, if they claim to be a source of tourism then start putting those stats together and prove it. This taking from the poor to give to the rich model needs to stop-- royals need to start paying for their homes, renovations, additions etc... the UK need to start transitioning them off the teat of the taxpayer.
 
Last edited:

Sallie Blair

Team Owner
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
52,726
Reaction score
Reactions
449,392 14,182 6,599
468,625
Alleybux
856,016
The family has fallen as has the institution. Poorly run with no room for innovation, smooth adaptation, too dependent on the unprofessional UK media, stuck in time with no decision to join the rest of us who are the majority.

We see them constantly "reinventing" themselves but the reinvention does not last and they slip right back to the start. Sure they are a distraction but as we are seeing in actual dire situations they are a nuisance and part of the problem. Someone mentioned them being in crisis mode and that's exactly it. The tourism industry can say they had a direct hit from COVID but what can royals say? They are in the best position to give instead of offering words of encouragement.

When you become neutralized to the point where citizens step up including a 99 year old retired vet an a 23 year old footballer and do more for the nation than those who claim bring goodwill aka royal family, that says a lot. Even louder is when Captain Tom was being knighted and it didn't make a huge splash they thought it would. His actual tangible contribution meant more to the public than him receiving knighthood, despite his many years of spreading goodwill.

Royals need to stop snapping up trends they need to become the trend and not in the negative way they constantly are. They can start by giving Andrew to the authorities and not accepting any government assistance. They need to start becoming self sufficient, if they claim to be a source of tourism then start putting those stats together and prove it. This taking from the rich and giving to the poor model needs to stop-- royals need to start paying for their homes, renovations, additions etc... the UK need to start transitioning them off the teat of the taxpayer.

I think I said somewhere else on LSA that the BRF is so tightly linked to the Tory party (and the Euroscepticism that led to Brexit) because it is Britain's last institution from their days as a global power and colonizer.

And it's the only leverage in the UK's "special relationship" with the United States. This is why US magazines like People and US Weekly and TV morning shows pump out a steady stream of puff pieces about the royals (with Kate the "normal mum" comparable to American middle class SAHMs at the top of the list) when the average Brit doesn't even gaf about their lives like that. If Americans remain enamored with the BRF, then the rest of the world follows suit. The BRF will not fall with so many institutions devoted to holding it up to hide the crumbling facade of Britain.
 

Hexa

Team Owner
Joined
Apr 13, 2014
Messages
11,417
Reaction score
Reactions
105,757 6,634 2,563
111,520
Alleybux
523,820
If anything, shows like The Crown have made it more popular than ever. Popular in the sense that that republicanism isn't feasible. Even royal family critics love the fuckery. I can't see the UK getting rid of titles and royals in my lifetime.
 

Kitty12

Team Owner
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
Messages
30,113
Reaction score
Reactions
152,726 4,765 1,968
156,323
Alleybux
882,357
I think I said somewhere else on LSA that the BRF is so tightly linked to the Tory party (and the Euroscepticism that led to Brexit) because it is Britain's last institution from their days as a global power and colonizer.

And it's the only leverage in the UK's "special relationship" with the United States. This is why US magazines like People and US Weekly and TV morning shows pump out a steady stream of puff pieces about the royals (with Kate the "normal mum" comparable to American middle class SAHMs at the top of the list) when the average Brit doesn't even gaf about their lives like that. If Americans remain enamored with the BRF, then the rest of the world follows suit. The BRF will not fall with so many institutions devoted to holding it up to hide the crumbling facade of Britain.
They won’t fall but sure as h*ll will be irrelevant which is just as bad.
 

LolaBea

Never argue w someone Harriet would've left behind
Joined
Jan 6, 2016
Messages
48,280
Reaction score
Reactions
541,461 5,941 1,428
572,462
Alleybux
24,500
I think I said somewhere else on LSA that the BRF is so tightly linked to the Tory party (and the Euroscepticism that led to Brexit) because it is Britain's last institution from their days as a global power and colonizer.

And it's the only leverage in the UK's "special relationship" with the United States. This is why US magazines like People and US Weekly and TV morning shows pump out a steady stream of puff pieces about the royals (with Kate the "normal mum" comparable to American middle class SAHMs at the top of the list) when the average Brit doesn't even gaf about their lives like that. If Americans remain enamored with the BRF, then the rest of the world follows suit. The BRF will not fall with so many institutions devoted to holding it up to hide the crumbling facade of Britain.

The UK was already nervous with Biden as he is proud of his Irish roots and the Irish haven't sang "God Save the Queen/King" in decades. When Biden wouldn't even give the BBC the time of day when they wanted to talk with him, his response was "I'm Irish"



to add to that the the US will scream we left that idea back in 1776. I don't think using royals for soft diplomacy speaks to many because as we've learned in the past year their hypocrisy and treatment of a fellow American shows how they will dispose of one in favour of protecting someone who violently harmed children.
 

Kitty12

Team Owner
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
Messages
30,113
Reaction score
Reactions
152,726 4,765 1,968
156,323
Alleybux
882,357
The UK was already nervous with Biden as he is proud of his Irish roots and the Irish haven't sang "God Save the Queen/King" in decades. When Biden wouldn't even give the BBC the time of day when they wanted to talk with him, his response was "I'm Irish"



to add to that the the US will scream we left that idea back in 1776. I don't think using royals for soft diplomacy speaks to many because as we've learned in the past year their hypocrisy and treatment of a fellow American shows how they will dispose of one in favour of protecting someone who violently harmed children.

They are screwed then lol
 

Fairynuff

Bench Warmer
Joined
Dec 18, 2020
Messages
18
Reaction score
Reactions
89
170
Alleybux
620
I would be so happy if they all left Britain, you are right, they are symbolic of the imperial past, nothing to be proud of there, us brits were bullies and millions died because of the elite's greed. Britain is a dreadful place to live, many people have no money and are relying on foodbanks just to survive and then you have those idiots in Buckingham Palace lording it over us, they are very unpopular and should go and go now.
 

Fairynuff

Bench Warmer
Joined
Dec 18, 2020
Messages
18
Reaction score
Reactions
89
170
Alleybux
620
I would be so happy if they all left Britain, you are right, they are symbolic of the imperial past, nothing to be proud of there, us brits were bullies and millions died because of the elite's greed. Britain is a dreadful place to live, many people have no money and are relying on foodbanks just to survive and then you have those idiots in Buckingham Palace lording it over us, they are very unpopular and should go and go now.
 

identify

Team Owner
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,603
Reaction score
Reactions
7,919 192 100
7,886
Alleybux
70,766
Yes, they are supposed to represent and support the people outside of politics, but instead they've shown strict adherence to Tory values. I'm not just talking about conservatism, because of course they are conservative, I'm referring to not saying a single word about the BLM/ civil rights movement, refusing to mask up on every public occasion to set a strong example in a public health crisis, the looming Brexit disaster that's scaring the crap out of people, ignoring child hunger and growing poverty... These problems shouldn't be politicised; they are serious public health and human rights issues facing millions of HMQ's subjects, and yet she and her family have refused to touch on them.

Ignoring these things are Tory directives, but as monarch the Queen should have ignored those orders and figured out how she and her enormously privileged family could have stepped up and helped in meaningful ways.

This is where they've gone seriously wrong, in my opinion. And considering the future future monarch, William, has had a revolving door of hardline Tory politicians on staff, this refusal to de-politicise their approach is not going to change anytime soon. To their detriment.

To sum up, I don't think the monarchy will fall, but I think the actual size of the kingdom will shrink steadily and significantly following QE2. They just don't have what it takes to reflect important values outside of what matters to an increasingly irrelevant, unbalanced, overly-conservative England.
Anything the government deems as political, the royals cannot take on. And the governments, both Tory and Labour, have been very smart in boxing the Windsors in. Charles has spoken out about poverty, social equity, state school education, and community development for decades and uses the Prince’s Trust to do community development and he’s been criticized for decades over it.
 

Fionacaved

Starter
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
413
Reaction score
Reactions
5,604 40 59
6,181
Alleybux
300
They aren't though, they generate revenue through tourism, real estate, and investments
We'll agree to disagree, but they are absolutely not a big deal to most Brits. They successfully overthrew them in the past (that's why they were a years without a monarchy before a crown was reinstated, after Richard III, I believe). There have been national studies that suggest that most people under 50 are in favour of doing away with the crown.
The only tourists we hear of going to the palace (unless its a school trip or the like) are non- British tourists. Americans may stop by once in their lives and the Chinese are known to be OBSESSED with the Royals.
Go to ANY British paper website (DailyMail, Daily Mirror, The Sun, The Telegraph, etc). Click whatever puff piece the PR teams have sent (they are constant). Don't bother reading. Just scroll down to the comments. Mind you, the readers of those papers will be conservative (right wing or centre rightwing) older Brits. They'll be highlighting that they are a waste of the tax payers money (look for the 2 year article in which the queen had to lobby Parliament to repair one of the palaces because it was rundown. Brits were not pleased because the country was undergoing a mini recession, which they seemed exempt from). The crown is considered a distraction to true democracy and has no place in the 21st century.
Also, the queen is fully aware that the Brits would overthrow them if they EVER tried to flex any divine right to govern power. That's why, it has be stated, she has yet to call on that power because she knows that suddenly people would become aware of how their power isn't democratically given and get rid of them. That's why the queen forces herself to get along with every prime minister, including Thatcher, whom she watched destroy the nation in a few short years.
Again, you don't have to look far for the British sentiment. Pick a a news piece online and scroll through the comment. The comments are brutally honest and never nice.
 

puresoul

General Manager
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
2,029
Reaction score
Reactions
18,738 586 131
18,607
Alleybux
466,501
One royal expert speculates that the monarchy could be abolished before George has the chance to accede to the throne. Obviously, this is speculation, so can't be taken as something that is concrete, set in stone. Thoughts?


"Prince George is the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s eldest child and third in the line to the British throne.

George, 7, is behind his grandfather Prince Charles, 72, and father Prince William, 38, in the succession line - which to most people means he'll definitely become king.

However, a royal expert has claimed Prince George’s ascension to the throne may never happen.

Prince Charles is already the oldest heir apparent in British history as the Queen is the longest reigning monarch in history.

Queen Elizabeth II has been on the throne for 69 years and still shows no sign of stepping down. In fact, next year she is due to mark her Platinum Jubilee which will see the nation celebrate the Queen's incredible 70 year reign.

Due to this, there will be three royal reigns to run their course before George can become king.

During the Queen’s reign, British politics and society have undergone huge changes - from rapid globalisation to the technological revolution.

But one royal expert claims interest in the monarchy is waning.

Royal expert and author of The Last Queen: How Queen Elizabeth II Saved the Monarchy, Clive Irving has argued that the monarchy could be abolished even before George has the chance to accede to the throne.

He told Express.co.uk : "Before you can assess how William, and later George, might work out, you have to allow for the way the monarchy will look under King Charles, and whether under him it can survive."

Mr Irving argues that the current Queen, like her late father, is an exemplar ruler and due to her immense popularity the monarchy has been able to survive for so long.

Mr Irving said: "The Queen and her father, George VI, were exceptions in the Windsor line that followed Queen Victoria, the only ones to be exemplary in the role."

The royal expert does not have the same view of heir apparent, Prince Charles.

He said: "In my view Prince Charles is a reversion to the line of duds, falling far short of the standard set by his mother and grandfather."

And so, along with waning appetite for the monarchy, Mr Irving argues the monarchy could be abolished before Prince George takes the throne.

The expert said: "All polling shows that younger Britons don’t find the monarchy relevant.

"What is salient to this attitude is the impression that the Windsors are too many, too many freeloaders and palace dwellers."

Mr Irving added: "Together the royal family occupies 15 state residences paid for by public money at the cost of at least £82 million a year – in contrast Denmark, for example, allots around £9 million to its royal family.

"A pared-down monarchy – fewer palaces, no freeloaders and attractively modern family heads – might make a re-boot work, but that’s impossible to judge right now."

Despite the claims, it is hard to predict how the British public would respond to the monarchy in decades to come.

Prince William remains popular. In fact, according to a YouGov poll, Prince William is the second most popular royal.

Prince George's siblings Charlotte and Louis are currently fourth and fifth in line to the throne but will be pushed down the line of succession by any children George has in future." End of article

"A pared-down monarchy" -- I remember reading somewhere that Charles wanted to downsize the working RF (which I think was used as one of the excuses for why Archie will (most likely) not get a title) to save costs or something.
 

moongazer

MVP
Joined
May 1, 2021
Messages
671
Reaction score
Reactions
2,122 831 1,007
1,116
Alleybux
166,359
A pared-down monarchy, no freeloaders - I think Charles is right to streamline and downsize (and cut off Harry's allowance). And no, the move is not aimed only at Archie. It will affect his other grandchildren Charlotte and Louis and their children and so on down the line. But it has to be done.

But I think the BRF will last in my lifetime.
 

Belle14

General Manager
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
2,153
Reaction score
Reactions
15,616 773 161
16,658
Alleybux
212,091
I doubt it 1000 year old institution has seen worse. They’ll just draw the bridge and wait it out like their doing now. The entire Commonwealth needs to brake away before we start to see them panic.

Unfortunately, the Commonwealth Countries have dug their heels in and aren't going anywhere. Lots of backroom shennaigans going on behind the scenes. Promises made under the table and so forth. Lots of people eat off of the monarchy and the institution. It basically exists to finance the upper echelons of society, not only here in the UK but also the upper political parties in the countries - make no mistake, there are quid pro quos galore with the UK and other countries that the public have no idea of and never will if you don't move in those circles. I especially love the way the little countries came to the table, flexed their muscle and told the UK that if you give us what we want, we will make Charlie boy the head after his mum. Charlie was shook. He thought the commonwealth countries was going to automatically accept his as their head.

1621201924225.png

Britain's Queen Elizabeth II, second left, Prince Charles, Commonwealth Secretary-General Patricia Scotland and Prime Minister Theresa May walk in the Blue Drawing Room at Buckingham Palace as the Queen hosts a dinner during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, in London, Thursday. (Victoria Jones/Pool Photo via AP)

Queen wants Prince Charles to be named as head of Commonwealth​


London:The Commonwealth decides its leader by consensus and has the right – never exercised, but nonetheless real – to choose someone other than the British monarch under a convention that dates to the years after World War Two.

Queen Elizabeth II has expressed her clear desire that Prince Charles succeeds her as the head of the Commonwealth in an unusually direct message to political leaders after months of speculation over who should take the position.

The Queen used a moment of high ceremony in Buckingham Palace to make her wishes known to the 53 member nations of the Commonwealth and ensure the position goes to the heir to the throne.

“It is my sincere wish that the Commonwealth will continue to offer stability and continuity for future generations, and will decide that one day the Prince of Wales should carry on the important work started by my father in 1949,” the Queen said.

“By continuing to treasure and reinvigorate our associations and activities, I believe we will secure a safer, more prosperous and sustainable world for those who follow us: a world where the Commonwealth’s generosity of spirit can bring its gentle touch of healing and hope to all.”

The Queen confronted the issue in her opening remarks to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in front of an audience that included every major political leader as well as Prince Charles and other members of the royal family.

Her remarks make no change to her position and do not mean she is preparing to step down in favour of her son, but show that she wants the issue resolved before Prince Charles ascends to the throne.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, a longstanding republican, is supporting Prince Charles as the next head of the Commonwealth but other nations are yet to make the same endorsement.
Asked about why a republican could argue for the monarch as head of the Commonwealth, Mr Turnbull cited the formation of the group in 1949 when republican nations supported the monarch.
“So there is no inconsistency in being someone who advocates or supports Australia having an Australian as head of state, as opposed to the monarch of the United Kingdom, and at the same time saying the head of the Commonwealth, which is a ceremonial role, and a role of honour rather than political authority, that role should I think continue – and I think this is the very widespread view – with the Queen’s successor,” Mr Turnbull said after the Queen’s remarks.
Queen Elizabeth used her opening address to note the role of her father, King George VI, in helping to establish the Commonwealth after World War Two.

“Here at Buckingham Palace in 1949, my father met the Heads of Government when they ratified the London Declaration, which created the Commonwealth as we know it today – then comprising just eight nations,” she said.

“Who then -- or in 1952, when I became Head of the Commonwealth -- would have guessed that a gathering of its member states would one day number 53, or that it would comprise 2.4 billion people?”

A key issue in 1949 was Indian independence two years earlier, leading to a question being put to Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru about who should replace King George VI as head of the Commonwealth. He is said to have replied: “The Queen, of course.”
No political leader from a Commonwealth nation has called publicly for the position to pass to anyone other than Prince Charles, but the question is yet to be settled by the leaders at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.

Lord David Howell, the head of the Royal Commonwealth Society, told Fairfax Media the position should pass to the next in line to the throne.
“The assumptions are that the Commonwealth will gather when the sad occasion comes and will make the decision,” he said.

“My own view is they would be wise to make a decision in favour of the occupant of the British throne because it is a non-political head, a ceremonial head of the Commonwealth.
“But it is up to the leading voices of the Commonwealth to decide, and that’s always been the situation – there’s nothing new about it.”

The Australian Republican Movement seized on the debate earlier this month to step up its call for a vote on a republic while Queen Elizabeth is alive, arguing that the discussions at the Commonwealth show the wisdom of making a decision as soon as possible.

ARM national director Michael Cooney said Australian voters should be able to make the same democratic decision about their head of state and that a national vote should be held in 2020 in order to clear the way for a referendum in 2022.

The Queen turns 92 this Saturday, April 21, the day after the summit closes.
The fact that the Queen is the head of state in only 16 of the 53 member nations has been put forward as one argument for a consensus decision by the Commonwealth to have a leader who is not the British monarch.
 

Attachments

  • 1621201888140.png
    1621201888140.png
    428.7 KB · Views: 13

Selkirk

General Manager
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
4,839
Reaction score
Reactions
48,800 1,688 638
53,087
Alleybux
5,720
Yes but a lot of commonwealth countries have turned to China they are making deals with China and that’s not going to end well for them or Britain
 

Selkirk

General Manager
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
4,839
Reaction score
Reactions
48,800 1,688 638
53,087
Alleybux
5,720
Just look what’s going on with Scotland not a good look for the Queen no one likes Charles he’s weak and shows no leadership bojo is an ego maniac he thinks he’s king and loves the publicity
 

LolaBea

Never argue w someone Harriet would've left behind
Joined
Jan 6, 2016
Messages
48,280
Reaction score
Reactions
541,461 5,941 1,428
572,462
Alleybux
24,500
A pared-down monarchy, no freeloaders - I think Charles is right to streamline and downsize (and cut off Harry's allowance). And no, the move is not aimed only at Archie. It will affect his other grandchildren Charlotte and Louis and their children and so on down the line. But it has to be done.

But I think the BRF will last in my lifetime.

Nah cut it more, all that's needed are the monarch and heir no need for others the government can pay for their public appearances which should be limited to actual service to the public and have the others including spouses, children, cousins etc pay their own way should they want to do charity, hold garden parties, and go on tours. They should also be responsible for the upkeep of their own properties, security only used on official work on behalf of the government that the monarch and spares do everyone else can afford their own.

The jewels need to be returned and any that are that of the public on display, the artwork hidden in their homes shown unless they are willing to reimburse the money used to purchase them. There is a lot of ways to slim down the monarchy so it isn't in the way of actual important work and so that is doesn't serve as a distraction from government corruption.

Ps. Harry receives no allowance.
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

News Alley

Ask LSA

Top Bottom