"The Royals Are Spiraling About Prince Harry's Upcoming Memoir"

[Stevicus]

Nearly all Brits do admire our Queen, but after her time the monarchy could be on thin ice.
Charles could lose the lot, William could save some of it. But Charles seems to be more interested in Charles than the future of the Monarchy.

Couldn't they just transfer it to another house? Haven't they done that in the past when the ruling dynasty just couldn't cut the mustard?

Are there any descendants of the House of Tudor around somewhere? You need someone like Henry VIII on the throne to liven things up.

 

[Kooky]

If your misgiving with Charles Windsor is that he's an out of touch relic of a bygone age with way more money than sense, then I'm not sure the Stuarts would be an improvement.

Or the House of Hannover, for that matter.

 

[exchemist]

If your misgiving with Charles Windsor is that he's an out of touch relic of a bygone age with way more money than sense, then I'm not sure the Stuarts would be an improvement.

Or the House of Hannover, for that matter.

I think the way forward is a slimmed down monarchy, on the European model. Both Chaz and Will seems to be in favour of that - at least, according to the little I have read about it. Cut the side branches down to size, reduce the budget and turn some of the stately homes into National Trust properties open to the public.

But the UK will remain a monarchy for the foreseeable future I think. It seems to work on the Continent - and I can see no advantage at all in any form of elected president. Tradition is important to national identity.

 

[Kooky]

I think the way forward is a slimmed down monarchy, on the European model. Both Chaz and Will seems to be in favour of that - at least, according to the little I have read about it. Cut the side branches down to size, reduce the budget and turn some of the stately homes into National Trust properties open to the public.

That's largely not how any of the major European monarchies work, I think. The monarchy of the Netherlands, for example, is their country's single largest owner of private real estate.

Frankly one ought to expropriate all of them and put them on salaried positions like every other Head of State, but that's of course a pipe dream in a capitalist society that worships inherited wealth.

 

[exchemist]

That's largely not how any of the major European monarchies work, I think. The monarchy of the Netherlands, for example, is their country's single largest owner of private real estate.

Frankly one ought to expropriate all of them and put them on salaried positions like every other Head of State, but that's of course a pipe dream in a capitalist society that worships inherited wealth.

Hahaha, I thought that would get a rise out of you.

But that's not what the people would want, in the Netherlands. And probably not what they would want in Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark or Spain, let alone the UK. Tradition is important.

(It's got nothing to do with capitalism of course: if it had, the US would be a monarchy.)

 

[Stevicus]

If your misgiving with Charles Windsor is that he's an out of touch relic of a bygone age with way more money than sense, then I'm not sure the Stuarts would be an improvement.

Or the House of Hannover, for that matter.

Oh, I don't think anything would be an improvement at this point. It's just more entertaining to watch a monarchy crash and burn as opposed to just fading away.

I also liked the miniseries "Fall of Eagles," which depicts the fall of the houses of Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romanov, which all collapsed mainly due to WW1. It's also somewhat amusing to see a young Patrick Stewart playing the role of Lenin.

I think WW1 was a tragic demonstration of the monumental failure that monarchism truly is. It probably should have ended right then and there, and it mostly did - except in a few holdout countries for sentimental reasons.

 

[Kooky]

Oh, I don't think anything would be an improvement at this point. It's just more entertaining to watch a monarchy crash and burn as opposed to just fading away.

I also liked the miniseries "Fall of Eagles," which depicts the fall of the houses of Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romanov, which all collapsed mainly due to WW1. It's also somewhat amusing to see a young Patrick Stewart playing the role of Lenin.

I think WW1 was a tragic demonstration of the monumental failure that monarchism truly is. It probably should have ended right then and there, and it mostly did - except in a few holdout countries for sentimental reasons.

It is said that in ancient times, monarchies were invented so that people had someone to blame when things went wrong. These monarchs are said to have been sacrificed in cases of bad harvests, natural disasters, or other, similar instances of "divine" misfortunes.

The monarchies of Germany, Russia and Austro-Hungary were sacrificed as scapegoats by the military and economic establishment that had ultimately been responsible for the imperialistic policies of their respective nations, and the manner in which these policies spun out of control until they resulted in a destructive, global war.

In this sense, I would argue that the monarchies of the Hohenzollern, Romanovs and Habsburgs succeeded at their original, ancient purpose of providing readimade scapegoats when things went catastrophically wrong for their nations.

 

[oldbadger]

Charles isn't charismatic, so I wonder what will happen when he is king.

If Charles so loves the monarchy he will pass it staright to William, but he won't, and it might not survive.

 

[oldbadger]

Couldn't they just transfer it to another house? Haven't they done that in the past when the ruling dynasty just couldn't cut the mustard?

Are there any descendants of the House of Tudor around somewhere? You need someone like Henry VIII on the throne to liven things up.

Wow.... Henry? That murdering thieving nutter? Wow!
William and Kate might save some of it. But Charles....? Oh dear......

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow.... Henry? That murdering thieving nutter? Wow!
William and Kate might save some of it. But Charles....? Oh dear......

They should make this guy king.

 

[oldbadger]

They should make this guy king.

Oh blimey! He can be King of Scotland. Actually Scotland should have it's own King.
Now that oil and gas are totally out of fashion we could dump Scotland for everything but tourism.
He he.....

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh blimey! He can be King of Scotland. Actually Scotland should have it's own King.
Now that oil and gas are totally out of fashion we could dump Scotland for everything but tourism.
He he.....

Groundskeeper Willie is better than any of your royals.
He works for a living. He's not an entitled goolingfester.
And he'd cost less to feed, clothe, & house.

 

[oldbadger]

Groundskeeper Willie is better than any of your royals.
He works for a living. He's not an entitled goolingfester.
And he'd cost less to feed, clothe, & house.

The Queen still works at 95.
Willie is a Wally.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Queen still works at 95.
Willie is a Wally.

Your queen isn't a worker.
Willie would keep the halls of Buckingham Palace clean.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What? Ol' Vlad is just a regular, exceptionally good looking guy who got into power by the overwhelming approval of his people, and has only stayed there because he's just that good at improving the lives of the Russian people, minus foreign agents and Caucasian terrorists of course!

That is, I imagine, the primary reason why you see so few modern tyrants transferring their rule into official monarchies: It fundamentally undermines their own public image as being in power due to popular approval.

In pre-industrial times, people believed in a divine right of kings, which is why I believe that back then, it was politically opportune even for a jumped-up military dictator to assume the mantle of kingship.
Whereas in our modern times, people believe in the inherent legitimacy of popular support, which I would say is a major factor why the same people who would be Emperor Napoleon or the Prince of Orange in earlier times call themselves President and Prime Minister these days, and hold sham elections in an attempt to cater to that modern sensibility.

In the meanwhile the rebels of the south are giving Biden a good ole' rebel yell and singing Jackson's back in the valley!!

I thought you needed help in adding to your amazing scenario there.

 

[Kooky]

In the meanwhile the rebels of the south are giving Biden a good ole' rebel yell and singing Jackson's back in the valley!!

I thought you needed help in adding to your amazing scenario there.

The American President is actually a great example of how such ideas can metastasize. The original office existed, basically, because the US Congress felt naked without a stand-in for a king, somebody who could sit next to all those crowned heads but still be based on their new religion of popular support.
It was an attempt to square the circle of divine right with a popular mandate.

As time went on, the office of the POTUS became more and more the focus of centralization, as more and more centrally led, executive bureaucracy was necessary to run an industrializing society - a bureaucracy that would naturally converge around the President as the singular, centralized office of government.

At this point, the POTUS is essentially the American version of a monarch, except chosen by popular mandate rather than divine right - and much like the Reformation came with a fractioning of the notion of divine right, between Catholic and Protestant, the Internet has come with a fractioning of the notion of popular mandate.

 

[oldbadger]

Your queen isn't a worker.
Willie would keep the halls of Buckingham Palace clean.

The Queen works every day.
And she does more paperwork in a day than you probably do in a week.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Queen works every day.
And she does more paperwork in a day than you probably do in a week.

Paper pushers....piffle!

 

[kaninchen]

The problem with heads of state with power (like the US and France) where symbolic 'ribbon cutting', sports trophy awarding, entertaining foreign dignitaries, national celebration/mourning, etc jobs are combined with a major political role is that half the population will loathe the current incumbent.

If you don't want that then you're left with either constitutional monarchy or the kind of 'superannuated party politician that people hate least' situation you get in countries like Germany and Italy.

The trouble the UK may face is that when Liz goes (very few people really dislike Liz), then Charles (who is 73), the alternative 'superannuated . . .' might start to look less unattractive - unless the likely alternative would be Bozo, obviously.

 

[JIMMY12345]

With only what we know on this of the pond, I have developed a real dislike for Camilla.
Interested in what others may offer in her defense.

Prince William Plans To "Stay Neutral" If Prince Harry Comes For Duchess Camilla In His Memoir (msn.com)

Please could you expand. If you list a couple of reasons we can all try and properly reply with focused comment. Who knows with informed replies. You may change your mind. This is a Religious forum .Their comments may prompt a radical change in thought. Their posts may cause you to love Camilla. The other posters who reply might be touched. They might send flowers and chocolates (to you both).If they do. Only keep the first. The second is bad for you. "A second on the lips, Years on the hips". Give the chocolates to a friend. Preferentially one you do not like. Camilla?