How long with the Royal Family last?

KWAG2019

Sweet.Science wrote: »

They could open Buckingham Palace for tourists. It would bring in a lot more.

It is. I did the tour. It was in bad nick tbh. Very interesting to see how the British state uses the whole “royal” thing to manage foreign visits etc. the splendor of some rooms and entryways is no doubt meant to be impressive or intimidating as the case may be. It’s a living lesson in British tradition and continuity for the masses. I’d recommend the tour: even in 2019 my Irish accent caused the shop assistant (yes the Firm has a very savvy retail thing going) to freeze the smile!

osarusan

Apparently the UK Republic party plans to wait until the queen dies and use the time between her death and the coronation of Charles to really try and highlight the issue of abolishing the monarchy.

But I don't think they're going anywhere any time soon. Younger people are more likely to just be indifferent to them, than actively be against them.

James Brown

Can't see it going anywhere. Might take a lower level in the day to day psyche. The days of the wealthy needing a monarch and one they agree with religiously, (power and money) are long gone though.

Ironicname

donkeykong5 wrote:

Only person who ever deserved the title ROYAL in my opinion was diana

Why in the name of **** is that?

Beta Ray Bill

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Its 2020. Surely the time of Queens,Princes,Princesses,Dukes etc is up.

Maybe when the Queen dies it will fizzle out

Very unlikely.

Parliament reports to the Queen.
She still has ultimate control (just never uses it) and selects members of the house of Lords

The membership of the House of Lords is drawn from the peerage and is made up of Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal. The Lords Spiritual are 26 bishops in the established Church of England. Of the Lords Temporal, the majority are life peers who are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister, or on the advice of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. However, they also include some hereditary peers including four dukes

Note: The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is Queen Elizabeth II

"The Crown Corporation" is also one of the wealthiest organisations in the world.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I think ye're underestimating just how stone mad the British and much of the commonwealth populations (and, for some reason, koreans) are about the royal family.

I work in the English Market and still there is a steady unending stream of them coming there primarily because she visited, for half an hour, ten years ago. Posing beside a plaque on the wall to have their photo taken. With a plaque. Pat O Connell is still dining out on it. Very much the physical presence of the royals themselves is part of the appeal.

It's hard for Irish people to grasp I think, because there is NO social institution or establishment of the state that's afforded the same deference and mindless respect and affection as the royal family and monarchy are there.

It's archaic and frankly bizarre to observe from the outside and I'm glad we don't have one here but I can't see it going anywhere. They're one of the most enduring monarchies of the modern age, they've been beset by a lot of abdications, scandals, world wars that could and did fatally destabilise other monarchies and they've survived.

MadYaker

walshb wrote: »

The Royal family probably brings in as much cash to the county as it costs to have them in place...

The Queen, herself is one of Britain's hardest working people.

I see this said a lot but is it actually true. I find it hard to believe. Nobody gets to see the royals all you see is the outside of buckingham palace. There are far more impressive palaces in other european cities.

osarusan

MadYaker wrote: »

I see this said a lot but is it actually true.

an article from 2018 which mostly says that it's hard to calculate an answer to that:


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/royal-wedding-family-how-much-uk-economy-benefits-cost-meghan-markle-expense-a8345436.html

Beta Ray Bill

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

Very unlikely.

Parliament reports to the Queen.
She still has ultimate control (just never uses it) and selects members of the house of Lords

she has ultimate control, because Parliament gives her ultimate control. Parliament can remove it any time it likes.

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

"The Crown Corporation" is also one of the wealthiest organisations in the world.

the Crown Corporation has nothing to do with the Monarchy, it is the corporation that runs the City of London and is, in theory, a completely separate state to the rest of England. It is very very wealthy, but has nothing to do with the Windsors. in fact, theoretically, she is not allowed to enter the square mile unless invited by the Lord Mayor.

The Crown Estates is something different and covers things like many of the Royal Palaces, parklands, all the foreshore in the UK, as well as large amounts of commercial property. This was all handed over to the government by George III to settle the monarchy's debts and in return, a percentage of the income is given to the monarchy for their upkeep. This doesn't go in to their back pocket (well, some does) it goes to cover the salaries of their staff and the upkeep of the buildings they use, such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.

state functions, security etc are all seperate and come directly from tax payers money, as it would for a president or any other head of state,

AlanG

At some stage a social media campaign is bound to take hold pointing out that believing blood line is the key to ruling a country is not a lot different to believing one race or gorup cna be born with rights over another. It amazes me that anyone of colour or from the former empire can support the royal family but lots currently do.

If a significant number of people start publicly turning down royal visits and OBEs etc then the view of royalty could change quite quickly. Cleverly anyone of influence in the Uk is given an OBE or similar and then then are unlikely to speak out about the institution that has conferred on them a badge of superiority.

4068ac1elhodqr

Madame tussauds has had enough anyway (of some of them), the fairly harmless and generally luke-warm-likeable couple
- seem to have been moved from top spot, and out to share another room with celebs such as the Beckhams (Posh spice is fairly posh anyway).

The only living creature I would address as a lord/lady/royal or master is the visiting stray cat and the pinscher out the back, when he's looking fed.
Only ever bow when a pencil is dropped, or when passing through Japan, even then they'll happily bow back in the same equal manner.

Thelonious Monk

Irish people seem to love knocking the royal family and going on about them being a waste of taxpayers money and antiquated. The thing is though English people absolutely love them, and want to keep them, so I say leave them to it.

4068ac1elhodqr

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The thing is though English people absolutely love them, and want to keep them, so I say leave them to it.

More likely indifferent, however have you ever read the comments section of England's biggest selling newspaper(s)? It ain't pretty.

Also the Americanos seem to have an issue with Megan, not sure why she seems normal enough, maybe they're just well-jel of the fame n' fortune.

paleoperson

I don't mind them existing, but they should be treated as normal people.

Use the NHS rather than the private royal health system. Draw the ordinary dole rather than the royal one if they don't work.

They still get perks beyond imagination - their palace, other assets and free celebrity status for life.

Thelonious Monk

Koa Great Vineyard wrote: »

More likely indifferent, however have you ever read the comments section of England's biggest selling newspaper(s)? It ain't pretty.

Also the Americanos seem to have an issue with Megan, not sure why she seems normal enough, maybe they're just well-jel of the fame n' fortune.

I don't know, my time living there there were street parties for birthdays and royal babies and weddings, and all my English friends always said they wouldn't want to get rid of them.

Sardonicat

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Irish people seem to love knocking the royal family and going on about them being a waste of taxpayers money and antiquated. The thing is though English people absolutely love them, and want to keep them, so I say leave them to it.

And the Scottish people? And the Welsh? I know plenty if English people who have no time for them.

MadYaker

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Irish people seem to love knocking the royal family and going on about them being a waste of taxpayers money and antiquated. The thing is though English people absolutely love them, and want to keep them, so I say leave them to it.

Have you been reading the reactions from the press and public? I’m not seeing much love. It’s absolutely vile. You’d swear the royals are animals in a zoo purely for public entertainment. How dare want to live private lives and not have their every move photographed and scrutinised. How could you raise a family in those conditions? The right ring press in the uk are disgusting.

silver2020

If the royal family did not exist, what would the tabloids & gutter press write about and what would their brain dead readership talk about?

the Daily Muck had SEVENTEEN pages on harry & megan today.

That alone proves they were right to tell the establishment and the gutter press to eff off

strandroad

Kensley Hissing Scorer wrote: »

I work in the English Market and still there is a steady unending stream of them coming there primarily because she visited, for half an hour, ten years ago. Posing beside a plaque on the wall to have their photo taken. With a plaque.

That's gas. Those people, who are they, visiting Brits? What ages?

Boredstiff666

I thought this was an Irish Forum.

Boredstiff666

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

I thought this was an Irish Forum.

It is, but sure we have English people like yourself on here and some Irish people have an interest in the U.K. royal family. Don't know why personally but hey no skin of my nose if they do.

Montage of Feck

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Its 2020. Surely the time of Queens,Princes,Princesses,Dukes etc is up.

Maybe when the Queen dies it will fizzle out

I've decided to give myself the title of archduke.

Sardonicat

Montage of Feck wrote: »

I've decided to give myself the title of archduke.

Archduke Montage of Feck. You sound like you could actually be a descendant of Queen Vic with a moniker like that

astrofool

We keep Michael D around, at greater cost to the taxpayer.

Beta Ray Bill

Aegir wrote: »

she has ultimate control, because Parliament gives her ultimate control. Parliament can remove it any time it likes.

I don't think so (although we'll never find out)
Every soldier swears and oath of allegiance to the Queen, not parliament.
The Navy ships are called HMS not UKS.
They have no constitution, and never will have so long as there is a queen

There's a good video on the whole setup here:

From about 6 mins

In reality Parliament could potentially remove the queen however it will never happen as the potential strife it could cause.

suicide_circus

GooglePlus wrote: »

If it went to a vote, I reckon the people of the UK would vote in favour of keeping their royal family.

I think they're a waste of money too but they see it as part of their national identity.

this is the thing that people dont understand about brexit. its not about the money. people cant get their heads around this concept. same with a united ireland.

Eric Cartman

Cant see them going anywhere, its ceremonial now and part of the british psyche , however I think give harry a year or two in what is as close to the real world as any royal could ever be and he’ll be flying back to the palace , divorce papers in hand.

Beta Ray Bill

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

I don't think so (although we'll never find out)
Every soldier swears and oath of allegiance to the Queen, not parliament.
The Navy ships are called HMS not UKS.
They have no constitution, and never will have so long as there is a queen

There's a good video on the whole setup here:

From about 6 mins

In reality Parliament could potentially remove the queen however it will never happen as the potential strife it could cause.

the UK does have a constitution, it just isn't written down in one document. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

the Abdication of Edward VIII is a good example of the power Parliament has over the monarch. Any suggestion that the Monarch goes against their wishes would cause a constitutional crisis and a conflict between Parliament and the Monarchy. There is a big statue of Cromwell outside Parliament, that the Monarch passes every time they visit, to indicate what happens when the two clash.

The Queen is head of state of many countries including Canada and Australia. The royal family are much more loved than disliked.
Personally I am a Royalist and think they play a very important role in Britain and the commonwealth. Overwhelming consensus would be to keep the Royal family. Many of them are hard working and do lots of charitable work.
There is a fascinating book called 1000 years of the court of St. James which chronicalls the last thousand years of the British monarchy.

Duckworth_Luas

Montage of Feck wrote: »

I've decided to give myself the title of archduke.

May I recommend Sarajevo as a good tourist destination this Summer Your Highness?