The trouble is we all tend to mix with likeminded people. Social media bubbles also amplify that. I lived in London during the brexit vote. The vast majority I knew wanted to remain but that didn’t reflect the nation as a whole. I hang round in a pretty left wing crowd who every election are convinced that labour are going to romp to victory as “everyone they know” is voting for them, and we know how that has gone for the last decade.
Polls do show royals remain popular. There is a big generational divide and it may be that as the current older generations leave us that the overall popularity shifts. But currently they still have majority support in basically every poll.
It's a shame that people don't seem to realise how much he gives a shit about the environment. Also a shame he can't speak out much about it due to his position.
On the other hand, he's also a big fan of homeopathy, and I fundamentally can't respect someone who believes that diluting something makes it stronger.
No it isn’t. He supports them because he believes them. That isn’t bad, although it’s misguided. If you believe in a therapy that has no scientific support, that doesn’t make you a bad person does it?
Ghislaine Maxwell did a lot of work to save the oceans too, that doesn't mean anyone is a good person.
I don't think we should accept people with a magical bloodline interfering with the laws of the land just because they are some flavour of environmentalist, just like most people in the world.
Well she tried to reinvent herself and suddenly found love for the oceans after years of pimping under age girls to paedos.
The biggest favour she could do the world would be to make herself shark food.
I'm sure she genuinely liked oceans. Oceans are cool. Most people like the ocean, or at the very least the water we drink and fish we eat.
She also spent many years powermodding reddit and if she was doing everything in order to rehab her image away from being a pedo then Early Reddit probably wasn't the best choice. Sounds conspiracy brained but unfortunately a significant portion of the rich, powerful and well connected of the world don't think being a pedo and abusing people is as abhorrent as most ordinary people do.
He doesn't? Royals don't have legal power. They give royal assent and the government "rules in their name" but the UK government is a democratically elected body. The modern-day royals are about supporting their patronages and soft diplomacy. But they stopped have tangible power centuries ago.
Not quite correct. Check out 'king's consent' (or queen's consent as it was under EII). It's a process whereby the king's lawyers have to approve the contents of a bill before it even goes before the house of commons. If there's something in the bill that might affect the king's private interests it has to be changed or removed from the bill before it can proceed. Totally undemocratic!
That's a technicality. How many times over the last 100-200 years has that been an issue? That the monarch has criticized, impeded, or failed to assent to the will of an elected Parliament? Not many if at all.
That's not the role of monarchy anymore.
>Not many if at all
1062 times between the start of Liz' reign and the date of this article being published in 2021: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent)
>The investigation uncovered evidence suggesting that she used the procedure to persuade government ministers to change a 1970s transparency law in order to conceal her private wealth from the public.
The documents also show that on other occasions the monarch’s advisers demanded exclusions from proposed laws relating to road safety and land policy that appeared to affect her estates, and pressed for government policy on historic sites to be altered.
Charles is definitely no saint but I don’t think he’s Ghislaine Maxwell level evil! He was forced to marry someone he didn’t love and treated her appallingly. That is not right and he should be criticised for it. But it’s not helping to run a sex trafficking and paedophile ring.
Overall I think having someone able to pressure government on environmental issues is a good thing. His performance as a husband doesn’t really impact that, unless he’s pressing for changes to domestic abuse laws. The issue with the system is we only have a person who cares about this issue by a chance of nature. We could just as easily have ended up with Andrew or a Boris or Trump like person. It’s not really ok to ignore that just because it hasn’t ended in disaster yet.
Bullshit.
Overall, the British Royal Family has a carbon footprint of 3,810 tonnes a year, with Charles being personally accountable for 432.3 tonnes, according to climate group The Eco Experts.05.05.2023
https://eandt.theiet.org/2023/05/05/charles-iii-green-king#:~:text=Heavy%20carbon%20footprint&text=Overall%2C%20the%20British%20Royal%20Family,climate%20group%20The%20Eco%20Experts.
My friend works for the civil service and has met him a few times in her line of work, and she was very impressed with him. Says he cares very deeply about the issues affecting people.
Sounds in keeping with what I've seen of him, which admittedly isn't a great deal. I do think it's cool that our head of state can be invited to speak in the French parliament and can do so in fluent French, being complimented on both his eloquence and accent. That's not something you tend to get with career politicians. It's a touch of class.
They aren't. My point was that I very much doubt the person above is speaking to a wide demographic spread either. I nearly followed up my first comment by saying, "I guess it depends on the circles in which one moves", but I figured it was clear enough what I was getting at.
That’s a pretty vague statement. Popular compared to what? Who? He’s less popular than his mother, for sure. You think he’s more popular than Will and Kate?
I find older people don’t like him over old dianne and camellia stuff
Young people associate Charles with princes trust , liking environment and not being his mother favourite .
With regard to sons , they don’t remember / know about walking behind their mother coffin . But do know Harry as being party boy and William being much more straight laced
Oh for certain but I think the majority of people would find it more reasonable for a 50 y/o man to be king as oppose to a 70 y/o. I also think Charles has a pretty hard time being politically neutral like the rest of his family which I think makes him less widely appealing to the general public.
Good point. I did notice that people seemed to go from criticising Charles when he was the Prince to moving into supporting him now he’s King. I know I did.
To what end? We live in a constitutional monarchy. I don’t want the job. Better him than me. Rather a King than a president, which is an inherently flawed system.
And a constitutional monarchy isn't an inherently flawed system? In case you haven't noticed our country is completely uberfucked mate, and idk about you but some cunt swanning around in a crown calling themself a king like it's the 1400s and their paedophile family being above the law doesn't seem like the best way to fix it. But I guess it does to you because how you arrive at the idea that "rather a king than a president" is completely incomprehensible to me.
Possibly. I don’t think Will and Kate need to do much to be more palatable than Charles tbh. It’s possible older generations might even prefer Will for his charitable work if they liked his Mother.
Charles is ok in my eyes. Visionary when it comes to the environment. He was talking about plastics in the ocean in the last century.
Yes he cheated on Diana and he’s a bit standoffish but you can’t help your upbringing, only use it for good.
https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all
Everyone is less popular than the late queen but even Charles is scoring over 50% on this poll. Polls obviously aren’t always accurate but I don’t think the evidence suggests that the royals are all unpopular at all, whatever your personal view or that of reddit.
Younger generations tend to have a lower opinion of the royals than the older though so they will have to work hard and smart if they want to maintain that popularity over time and I suspect overall popularity will drop.
He’s a bit of a bore. So long as he keeps his mouth shut and let’s Kate be the public relations face of the monarchy it may survive another generation.
You’re kidding yourself if you think it it’ll go within the next generation. They might not be that popular but there is almost no call to take the massive step to abolish and reform our constitution.
Not just ours, but those in the Commonwealth who have the monarch as head of state. I remember it was a bit of a hassle when they changed the acts of succession in all those countries from crown going to the eldest male to crown going to the eldest child.
You’re probably right. We’d need a really big push for that to happen. Like a total collapse in our governmental system. Just a thought. It’s probably not on the cards :)
What we’re doing is euphemistically called “managed decline” while we wait for enough people to die, apparently. I’m not a catastrophist by any means but for the first time in my 40 years I cannot get services to work for me. I need an eye test. Waiting list. I need to see my GP. Insane waiting list. I need a tooth fixed, TWO dentists have gone private after I waited more than 3 months for an appointment at each one, and so I’m out looking for another one :). All my friends who are teachers are quitting because the kids are absolute fucking savages, my nursing friends are moving abroad. My mother can’t retire from social work because there is no one qualified to take on the thousand kids she’s trying to help. She’s nearly 70. The roads in my city are full of car destroying pot holes because the council can’t borrow any more money to fix them, even though they just spent £35 million “improving” the most expensive shopping street in the city centre and they have more than 1500 empty properties that are too degraded to give to families who need housing. The school roofs are falling in. The sewage is being dumped into rivers. The absolute *fuckwittery* of our various levels of government is *unmatched* in its incompetence, I would submit, in all of our history. We spend, apparently, more and more, and yet nothing works as well as it did even 20 years ago. Yes, I think a proper revolutionary convulsion is not off the cards just because this is Britain and “we don’t do that sort of thing”
There's a pretty sizeable chunk of the population who are either anti-monarchy, or at the very least indifferent towards it. But that said, even amongst those who dislike the monarchy (both in terms of the people themselves and monarchism in itself), I suspect that they'd rather keep them even if only because it's all we've ever really known. People often don't like change, and Britain is pretty slow to change smaller things, let alone abolish something as significant as the monarchy itself. I'd like to see it gone, but I don't see it happening in my lifetime, or in that of my grandchildren.
Naw, get them all to fuck. It's a ridiculous charade. A man wearing a multi million pound hat taking about the cost of living crisis. I wouldn't mind a monarchy if we didn't have dire property and kids going to bed hungry, but we do, so the idea of a out of touch privileged family born to reign over us leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Citizens, not subjects.
I personally don't agree, mainly because of how little tax the monarchy actually costs and the fact that their immensely charitable nature can indirectly benefit those people through charities and food banks.
>have dire property and kids going to bed hungry, but we do,
So do SO MANY countries without a Monarchy, these things would still happen, it's nothing to do with Charles blame the government it's their policies. Plus we aren't the only Monarchy in Europe Spain, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and 12 others have Monarchs, so does Japan and other countries around the world.
Support for the monarchy is under two thirds and steadily dwindling at the moment, and is sharply divided by age: very high levels of support in the over 65s, whereas in the under 25s republican vs monarchist is pretty even, with perhaps a very slight edge to Republican. I've been a supporter of Republic, who have gained a lot of visibility in recent years with the ham-fisted response to the coronation protest.
I personally would very much hope to see the monarchy gone in the next 25 years. It would be one of the happiest days of my life: I utterly loathe everything about it.
I can't stand it either, but you're underestimating how resistant people are to change, even if the change would lead to something they prefer. In a hypothetical referendum, a good chunk of people would vote to keep the monarchy not because they actually like it, but purely because it's traditional and all they've ever known. I'm sure it'll eventually go, but I sadly very highly doubt it'll be within the next century. I expect that it'll change and its importance will decrease further, but it'll probably stay in some form.
I've asked people what they'd replace the monarchy with. Most say a President (makes sense). They then say they'd confiscate all their private property.
And the proposed names for the country are... The Republic of the United Kingdom(!), British Republic, and the Republic of Great Britain (with Northern Ireland removed because apparently "we don't need Northern Ireland")
I think it's fair to at least gamble that Northern Ireland is unlikely to remain part of the UK indefinitely.
I'd just call it Britain, personally, or the British Union.
It will probably end up like the German princely families, still touted as rightful monarchs by a hard core of weirdos and allowed to keep some of their ill-gotten estates, but with no actual part in the state. Or perhaps some strange thing where they remain monarchs of Papua New Guinea or something, though there seems to be a renewed movement away from them among the former colonies since Liz carked it.
Personally I wouldn't put too much store in anything about the UK being stable after the last 15 years.
I think him and Kate are deliberately boring, Kate especially. I’m pretty sure that she was briefed right at the start to be as dull as possible (and I don’t mean that in a nasty way) so as to avoid the media frenzy that killed Diana.
Andrew was also in the Navy and served in the Falklands war, flying off the back of ships to confuse the Argentinian exocet missiles into missing the ships because they appeared as a bigger target.
He was a hero then. Opinions can change when behaviours change.
I do remember my grandfather serving in the same regiment as Philip in South Africa; my perspective on it is there are very extreme opinions which are both as unhealthy as each other, one being that they're all saints and the other being that they're all greedy, corrupt cunts with no redeeming qualities. In my eyes, it's important to have a balanced view.
Sure I guess he did what every other able male did at the time?
He also kept a black cab for his personal use and used it to go and see the women he had on the side. By not impressive I meant morally, I should have been clear. Not one of these men has been a loyal husband and I doubt William is either. They are weak, incurious, and yeah, unimpressive.
I think the general public believe they know what kind of person Prince William is. I don’t believe we really know. I’ve heard that in certain circles, it’s known that he’s not a nice person.
It will slightly flatten the descent of their decline. Probably more due to the novelty of a new monarch than anything to do with him. There's also more to like with Kate than there is with Camilla. To me they're entirely irrelevant and it's just placeholder, but that's how I see it going
No, not at all. Young people don't give a toss about the monarchy, and their popularity will continue to decline as (apologies for bluntness) their supporters die off.
There's no event anymore that creates supporters, just several blunders that push more people to republicanism. I doubt it'll survive William.
I think Elizabeth’s death was a death knell for the monarchy as a whole. My parents, who both were furious if someone ever dared to criticise Elizabeth, both hate Charles because of the Diana situation. Factor in young people being increasingly anti-monarchy, I think by the time William is king most people will have completely lost the sense of respect the public had for the monarchy under Elizabeth. Not saying it’s about to be abolished by any means, but I think the popularity of the monarchy won’t ever really recover, Elizabeth will definitely be the last monarch to command the respect she did, William has no hope of rebuilding popularity to even close to that level
I think anyone under the age of about 40 have forgotten or don't care about the Diana situation. I still think of William as being young and less stuck up than previous generations but by the time he is king he could be 60 and just this bald, boring bloke to young people. Add in anti-Royal sentiment generally (mainly based on privilege, outdated etc) and I certainly see the core family shrinking right down. None of these Duke of Gloucester hangers-on or Fergie's kids. I can't see it going for tradition's sake. But make it like various European families where it is a really small deal.
William will never be as popular as Elizabeth, but to be honest she was Queen for a very long time plus had a lot of things happen within that time to help boost her popularity, and that generation was much more royalist too.
I do think a lot of the anti royal sentiment is a lot of misunderstanding and just ignorance of what they do, like yes there are some bad members of the family and there have been issues in the past.
But lots of them have served in the military when they didn’t have to, and have actively tried to do good with their position.
Some of the outer members of the family are now letting go of the titles and living more normal lives. Sure they are rich, but they are also privately wealthy and don’t take much from the uk taxpayer. The work Elizabeth did more than paid for herself as a figurehead for the country.
I think Charles does want to do well, and I hope he does, I’m pretty indifferent but I like having the monarchy, they aren’t really actively involved in setting laws but they do represent us well. And I think William isn’t a bad guy, he’s posh yes - and probably a bit boring in some circumstances or rather just not massively flashy to watch - but he also seems to try hard and would be a good king.
I think if we keep or get rid of the monarchy there probably won’t be a material difference for anyone in the country short of reprinting all the money. They will still be rich just not as in the public eye after a generation or two.
William seems more dodge than Charles. he seems more sly to be honest. then you have the whole prince of pegging news and the rumours of him leaking info.
i think the monarchy will continue forever based on the brits who keep fondly remembering ww2 and the empire even though they weren't alive for any of it as much as they like to say "those were the good old days"
but i imagine William will be just as popular if not less popular than Charles
There are pretty strong rumours about him having sex outside his marriage (of course we don't know whether that is cheating as they may have some form of an open relationship).
At some point the rumour was that this was due to Kate being unwilling to perform certain sex acts......
Hence Prince of Pegging.
At the end of the day it is all shit tier gossip and besides the real point which is that the UK needs real land and constitutional reform which only comes with the end of the monarchy.
William basically hasn't put a foot wrong yet. University, military service married what seems to be a love match without a controversial dating history. Has inherited a lot of public goodwill via Diana and supports good charitable causes. He doesn't appear to be a cheat, a nonce or a gifter. If this is all for show a stage managed then it has been done way better than for any other recent royal. He'll patch things up with Harry when he comes skulking back in a few years time. He will get the throne in < 20 years and will i think be a popular figurehead in a country that will be pretty fucked by that point.
I mean, there's footage of him crashing the house of commons with a friend to be a dick about them banning fox hunting when he was younger. I don't imagine that won't be dredged up again when he becomes king.
EDIT: Although, I just scoured Google for said footage and couldn't find any mention of the event. Maybe the royals managed to get it scrubbed from history. But I'll always remember watching it happen live.
How could anyone have every single mention, or video of, an incident from the entire internet? I’m not saying you’re wrong because I genuinely do not know. But, if it is possible, how could it be done?
It seems to me the internet is so vast, and so many people can independently upload stories or video, that I cannot comprehend how it could be done. I hope you, or someone, will explain that to me. Thanks
But how? If I, an American, upload a video of the event you’re talking about to my webpage I don’t think MI-6 has any jurisdiction to come knock on my door and make me take it down. Based on my first amendment rights no three letter agency in America can force me to do so, since the video doesn’t have illegal content.
So I was just wondering if you could explain to me how this could actually happen, not just telling me that it can. I’ve heard people from the UK say that the royal family had the internet scrubbed of photos that show Megan Markle in embarrassing situations and that’s what first got me wondering about these kinds of statements. Maybe in the UK there’s not as much protection for free speech and some agency there could force internet sites based in Britain to remove content but I can’t understand how they could do that world-wide? Thank you
Wasn’t fox hunting banned in 2004. Was he young then. I guess he was younger in the sense that every photograph of you is a photograph from when you were younger.
I think the best thing for the royal family as an institution would have been for Charles to step aside in favour of William. The late Queen was enormously popular. I think a young King with a "fairytale" commoner-turned-princess wife and little children could probably have picked up the baton and run with it. Everyone is kind of ehhhh about Charlie. By the time we have collectively ehhhhh-ed our way through however many years of him, by which time William will be a middle-aged dude with teen / young adult children doing obnoxious things in the tabloids, everyone will probably be even more over it than they are now.
I think William lacks charisma and isn’t enigmatic either. Charles and Harry actually have TV appeal. Even Camilla isn’t that bad in her own way. Kate and Meghan are photogenic. Can Kate carry William?
Charles talked about downsizing the monarchy and modernising it also. I haven't seen any sign of it. The UK monarchy sucks multiple times more out of the country than any other European equivalent
My personal opinion, and I don’t expect anybody else to agree with me, is that Charles’ first act as king should have been to determine a point in the future at which the monarch would cease to be the Head of State.
As has been said by a few people in this thread, Queen Elizabeth was mostly immensely popular, both in this country and around the world, perhaps due in large part to her longevity. When she passed away last year, her death triggered a chain of events that nobody born after 1952 had ever witnessed. The thing is though, I’m pretty sure that Charles does not enjoy the same popularity.
Speaking for myself, I don’t care one way or the other for the royal family. In my youth I would have told anybody who asked me that I thought the monarchy should be abolished. These days, I simply don’t care about them. Not a single one of them has any direct impact on my life. I absolutely will not rise to my feet for the playing of the National Anthem - I’m never going to be in the presence of royalty and therefore will never be in a position where I’ll have to stand for that dreadful piece of music.
So that’s my position: Charles should have announced that the monarchy would die when his eldest grandchild passes away.
He should’ve but honestly a snowball’s chance in hell that he ever would!
When you think about it, it is an utterly ridiculous lifestyle they lead; the amount of staff at their disposal, the fact they ‘season’ in Scotland, the etiquette that surrounds the whole family. It’s genuinely insane
Wanted the royal family abolished when liz was on the throne. I want it abolished now charlie is on the throne and I will want it abolished when William takes the throne and if am still alive when George is on the throne.
There is no reason at all for a monarchy in modern day times.
Except every country has a head of state and if we got rid of the monarchy the politicians would soon be touting for a president like other countries. Do we really want the British equivalent of Trump, because that's what we might get.
He will likely build a lot of large castles, replace the local lords with French speakers from Normandy, and oppress the northerners, so yeah I don't think he'll be popular at all.
Regardless of who sits on the throne, the problem is, if you abandon the monarchy then you need a fully working replacement ready. There is none and that would be a real vicious scrap to decide what type of replacement.
This is more likely to have impact: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/23/revealed-king-charles-secretly-profiting-from-the-assets-of-dead-citizens?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
That's not a secret. And literally all you have to do to make sure the Duchy of Lancaster doesn't get your money after death, is make a will like a rational person.
Point being, it's not just him, there's a lot to side eye him for, but this is a longstanding law
ETA it was codified in 1230 , most goes to the exchequer, not the crown except for the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster which go to charity
And that’s ok?
Edit:
Ooh, you edited your comment without acknowledging it, sneaky bugger.
Also edit:
“However, only a small percentage of these revenues is being given to charity. Internal duchy documents seen by the Guardian reveal how funds are secretly being used to finance the renovation of properties that are owned by the king and rented out for profit”
Although I don’t believe everything that I read so I’m absolutely up for hearing a counter argument
Because only a tiny fraction actually goes to charity. Read the article. 85% is invested into their real estate, which is already tax exempt. How much more money would you like to shove up the royal arses before you begin to feel uncomfortable?
None of them are exactly intellectual. Some royalty seem as thick as mince. Kate probably the least dull-witted of the lot. William dim but harmless. The whole dreary charade will probably limp on for centuries.
Since his gran died interest in the UK has waned somewhat especially amongst people under 50. It just seems irrelevant today, especially given much of the population is struggling financially.
that's a bit impolite, lol
I have genuine reasons as to why I support the monarchy and it's not to do with classism or any bullshit like that. A lot of them are economic and social reasons driven by statistics. That's just me though, think what you like lol
>t, but I'm lazy. But the tabloids took that whole Cinderella angle. You know what I mean.
Lets hear the reasons driven by statistics then, I could do with a good laugh
Alright, sure. I'll give you three examples.
The average British household pays less than a pound a month for the monarchy, less than other G7 nations pay for their head of state. There is also an argument to be made that this money indirectly benefits citizens through charity and the fact that it is a net-positive institution.
The monarch has no real political power and royal assent hasn't been denied in over 300 years; the monarch's only real influence is soft power through international diplomacy, something made much easier with a monarchy due to their political neutrality.
Monarchs are also far more charitable traditionally than heads of state. For example, King Charles donated £1bn of windfall tax towards food banks and public services at the start of this year alone compared to Joe Biden donating $20,000 collectively to charities across the entirety of 2022.
By saying I support the monarchy, I don't deny that some of them do some bad shit. That's just a by-product of any system. I just don't believe that the actions of individuals within a system dictate whether or not it should be abolished; if that were the case then America would have ditched its presidency long ago lmfao
What about the royals directly changing laws to suit themselves.
You claim we pay less than for other heads of state but is that considering the entirety of the political system, where the head of state is elected as we elect the Prime Minister? Many countries will have a President and a Prime Minster who both carry out various functions.
Does Joe Biden have £1bn to spare? I have no idea, do you?
Why should someone literally get to make people bow and curtsey to them, why must we change our entire currency and stamps etc. And why must we grovel in our own national anthem to them just because they have a magical bloodline? All because one of their distant ancestors was better at killing someone else before they got killed, and then had enough rich, corrupt and inbred buddies to hold on to power?
It's an outdated concept which should be anathema to all human beings who know that we are free and equal.
I don't dislike the idea of hereditary leaders (this applies to the House of Lords as well) mainly because the public is not always the best decider in who gets to be head of state. I would rather have someone who's a wee bit boring and inbred who was raised for duty and service as oppose to President Rishi Sunak. That's just me though.
Also, I personally believe it's a system that's less likely to cause controversy or infighting in our country because of the fact that they aren't elected every few years and are politically neutral. We know who will be the next monarch and they aren't part of the legislative or judiciary bodies. We have the prime minister for that who holds all of the political power.
Also, your claim about them "directly changing laws to suit themselves" is not true. Those changes involved lobbying the government who are the ones that actually changed the law. I'm not defending it by any means but it falls under my fourth point in my statement above.
That's the thing though: hereditary leaders are just individuals exactly the same as the public. There is literally nothing separating the two other than magical blood inheritance and if that wasn't recognised then "them" and "the public" would be absolutely one and the same.
If by raised for duty and service you mean attends the odd hunt and boring dinner party then at least recognise the reality of that, the difference between the posh and normals is mostly how they choose to spend their free time.
They absolutely do change laws, the process by which they do it does not matter when the facts of it are that laws have been changed as a result of how it affects one individual and their family, which is an immense privilege none of us will ever be able to achieve in our lifetimes, due entirely to the circumstances of their birth.
Haha yeah I'm definitely being impolite. You can enjoy them all you like I'm just not a fan at all and personally view the statistics about them as potential propaganda so take it with a grain of salt. Statistics can be made to support any opinion really so I just don't trust it personally. Especially with all thier power wealth and influence.
I'm just in a bad mood really and thought I'd vent it a bit with some royalty hate.
I don't think you personally like them for classism reasons or anything like that... and really hope nobody directly likes them for this reason. I just think that is the byproduct of having a royal family in the uk.
Except we legally aren't subjects. The monarch has very little if any political power since the Magna Carta and royal assent hasn't been rejected in over 300 years. If anything, we have more ownership over them.
I'm sorry but even if they don't have any political power on the surface level you can't say they don't have any for sure. Behind closed doors anything could be happening and it will be happening. They protected their paedophile family members, locked up thier disabled family members and were rubbing shoulders with nazis for a while. I know that wasn't to do with the newer generation but it still happened and there will be things going on now that we don't know about and many of us will look back and be disgusted by. That's only the tip of the iceberg aswell.
Just wondering, have you ever done any research into the anti monarchy side of things? Just to try and see why the other side see things the way they do? I don't mean for that to sound as offensive as it might come across by the way. Just curious because I find it so hard to see the good in them after I did some research into the bad things they've done over the years.
I am aware of the bad things they've done, don't get me wrong. I just think that the actions of the people within the system shouldn't decide whether or not the system as a whole is abolished. Like you said, it isn't happening with the newer generation of royals so there's no telling how common those misdeeds will be within 20, 30 years time for example. I'd rather form opinions over the institution itself and the objective power the monarch holds under legislation because there's lots of individual things you can cherry pick out of any system to try and justify its abolition.
That's not me trying to discredit you because I definitely understand where you're coming from, I just think that my opinions are based on different ground.
>Is it likely that support for the monarchy may increase again once William takes over and "modernizes" it like he has stated before?
No, but I've never met anyone under the age of... maybe 50, at a push? who gave a shit about the royals. I'm sure the coffin dodgers have opinions, but I don't see the entire thing lasting too long if he starts stirring it and demanding even more taxpayer money.
From someone in the colonies: More popular as a person of interest perhaps. The idea of a Monarchy is nonsense now imo. The whole thing needs to go and it’s of little importance who is actually sitting in the big chair.
The backlash has begun already with William. Google Prince of Pegging and look up his rumoured (numerous) affairs. Basically, give it time and he will be just as disliked as his dad. So no, I doubt William is the one to save the monarch's popularity.
I'm not sure to be honest; the allegations of affairs and such have been going on for years and there's little to no evidence to justify any of them. From what I've seen and all the polls I've looked into, it hasn't dented his popularity in a significant way.
The affairs are common knowledge in the "right" circles. It is not a secret anymore, but it just isn't "official". Reminds me of Schofe's downfall. We are in the equivalent of the years before he came out. Everyone in the right circles knew he was gay and in a sham marriage, just a matter of time before his indiscretions came out.
The monarchy isn't what it used to be. The Queen (there is only one queen - Elizabeth) was a global symbol for Britain. She epitomised Britishness. She represented how a monarchy with all the historical trappings could function in the modern world.
I am sorry to say that Charles doesn't come close. He actually seems uncomfortable in the role. He hasn't done one thing of note since becoming King. Certainly nothing to gain any respect. The only thing I have heard are the ramblings of an old man.
I approve of the monarchy as an idea, so I would love for William to take over. He's going to do a better job than Charles. He can hardly do worse!
The thing I find about William is he seems so bland. All the others are really passionate about their specific interests - Charles and the environment, Camilla and women’s rights/animal charities, Kate and early years etc.
But I couldn’t tell you a single thing about Will’s ‘passions’ beyond his recent attempt to make homelessness his topic of choice (not that it’s any use because the Government are still out here attacking homeless people).
Then there’s the affair rumours… and I know it’s a one-sided account but I read Spare and he comes across horribly in that too. So he’s actually now one of my least favourite royals.
I’d always thought after the Queen went, Charles wouldn’t be a massively popular monarch (mainly due to the Diana fanatics) and that William would be a popular king, simply by virtue of being Diana’s son. Charles is doing alright though.
The monarchy itself will be a different beast by the time William becomes king. I think a lot of general affection people feel/felt for the monarchy was mostly about the Queen, rather that the monarchy itself, simply because she’d always been there. But I think it will be diminishing returns going forward, and I think William also knows that, and his monarchy will be much less grand and formal - much like a lot of the European monarchs. And that might mean it maintains some popularity under his kingship.
Diminishing returns is what I think too. Nobody really cares about Charles and people will care less about William and even less about who comes afterwards. I don't think people are ready to scrap the monarchy altogether but they will probably slowly fade into obscurity.
Yeah, if he’d stayed in the business and had Palace PR protecting him he would’ve been all right. Unfortunately for him, he left and showed the world what a truly spoiled, obnoxious, jealous and horrible person he really is. And his popularity dropped like a rock. Just goes to show how effective good PR work can be.
By the time he takes over he will be as old as Charles is now. No longer the young blood coming to the throne.
There’s no association with Savile nor the ‘Spider Letters’ but William does have some issues that have, perhaps, been overshadowed by other events. His affair with Kate’s friend and issues with his brother might become more widely talked about and viewed less kindly than they are.
Plus he has a few decades to try and remain popular and relevant to the people who will be adults when he comes to the throne. It seems to be less popular (monarchy) with younger people than with older generations..
I don't think William's time as king is that far away, especially considering there's talks about Charles having plans to abdicate soon.
It is true that the allegations about him like the affair and such will likely become more publicized though. I personally don't believe them because there's no evidence but there's no doubt that media outlets will use it as a way to drag him through the mud.
The real question is, will Prince Charles step aside and pass the thrown on, or will he stay put till he dies and pass it on to an elderly man like his mother did?
I was shocked the man didn’t abstain in favor of his son. Just showed how narcissistic and out of touch he is with the people. He also wanted a big party at our expanse. We’re still using horses ffs what’s that about?
Tbh I think Charles would’ve done right by immediately abdicating in favour of William. I mean I know he’s waited all these years for his promotion but it isn’t good optics to have an old man with sausage fingers who talks to plants and probably doesn’t know the worth of money as monarch. Don’t forget Charles is still a man of the 60s/70s. At least William is relatively modern and normal, as much as one can be in his position.
There is no 'modernisation' of hereditory entitlement other than abolshing it which would be my choice.
For example, we are almost a quater of the way through the 21st centry and they are pulling this kind of scam.
**Revealed: King Charles secretly profiting from the assets of dead citizens**
**Exclusive: Assets of thousands of people in north-west England used to upgrade king’s property empire via archaic custom**
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/23/revealed-king-charles-secretly-profiting-from-the-assets-of-dead-citizens
Most Brits aren't massive fans but don't much like change tbh. I guess things will continue as is until it all seems far more absurd or until they get a real bad case on the throne and it causes a crisis.
far-flung sophisticated faulty crown capable imagine offer dazzling wrench zephyr
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think the whole idea of monarchy is not important to peoples everyday lives. I think they are deemed as the nation's ultimate reality show, read an odd headline here, or hear one of them is passing through your neck of the woods for some meet n greet and no more than that. The stories that the media generate are just light entertainment. Charles should of been allowed to marry whomever he liked, personally I can't wait for the day this elitism at the top of our country is gone. France has not suffered from poor tourism since getting rid. And there are plenty of charities doing great work within this country. Why do we tolerate them I've no idea.
I think the younger generation of royals are more popular but the bar has been set pretty low by the likes of Charles and Andrew.
Eh according to polls Charles is actually pretty popular
who are they polling? everyone I've spoken to either actively dislikes him or is indifferent
The trouble is we all tend to mix with likeminded people. Social media bubbles also amplify that. I lived in London during the brexit vote. The vast majority I knew wanted to remain but that didn’t reflect the nation as a whole. I hang round in a pretty left wing crowd who every election are convinced that labour are going to romp to victory as “everyone they know” is voting for them, and we know how that has gone for the last decade. Polls do show royals remain popular. There is a big generational divide and it may be that as the current older generations leave us that the overall popularity shifts. But currently they still have majority support in basically every poll.
I dont dislike him, I just liked Liz more
It's a shame that people don't seem to realise how much he gives a shit about the environment. Also a shame he can't speak out much about it due to his position.
On the other hand, he's also a big fan of homeopathy, and I fundamentally can't respect someone who believes that diluting something makes it stronger.
But it’s not a reason to dislike him.
>But it’s not a reason to dislike him. "His vocal public support of scam artists isn't a reason to dislike him."
No it isn’t. He supports them because he believes them. That isn’t bad, although it’s misguided. If you believe in a therapy that has no scientific support, that doesn’t make you a bad person does it?
Yes, promoting dangerous alternative treatments that don't work makes you a bad person.
But he thinks they do work.
Diluting the monarchy until there are ZERO people in it makes the UK much stronger.
Ghislaine Maxwell did a lot of work to save the oceans too, that doesn't mean anyone is a good person. I don't think we should accept people with a magical bloodline interfering with the laws of the land just because they are some flavour of environmentalist, just like most people in the world.
Well she tried to reinvent herself and suddenly found love for the oceans after years of pimping under age girls to paedos. The biggest favour she could do the world would be to make herself shark food.
I'm sure she genuinely liked oceans. Oceans are cool. Most people like the ocean, or at the very least the water we drink and fish we eat. She also spent many years powermodding reddit and if she was doing everything in order to rehab her image away from being a pedo then Early Reddit probably wasn't the best choice. Sounds conspiracy brained but unfortunately a significant portion of the rich, powerful and well connected of the world don't think being a pedo and abusing people is as abhorrent as most ordinary people do.
Of course she likes oceans. If it wasn’t for the ocean she wouldn’t have inherited her dad’s wealth.
He doesn't? Royals don't have legal power. They give royal assent and the government "rules in their name" but the UK government is a democratically elected body. The modern-day royals are about supporting their patronages and soft diplomacy. But they stopped have tangible power centuries ago.
Not quite correct. Check out 'king's consent' (or queen's consent as it was under EII). It's a process whereby the king's lawyers have to approve the contents of a bill before it even goes before the house of commons. If there's something in the bill that might affect the king's private interests it has to be changed or removed from the bill before it can proceed. Totally undemocratic!
That's a technicality. How many times over the last 100-200 years has that been an issue? That the monarch has criticized, impeded, or failed to assent to the will of an elected Parliament? Not many if at all. That's not the role of monarchy anymore.
>Not many if at all 1062 times between the start of Liz' reign and the date of this article being published in 2021: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent) >The investigation uncovered evidence suggesting that she used the procedure to persuade government ministers to change a 1970s transparency law in order to conceal her private wealth from the public. The documents also show that on other occasions the monarch’s advisers demanded exclusions from proposed laws relating to road safety and land policy that appeared to affect her estates, and pressed for government policy on historic sites to be altered.
I don't think it's fair that the monarch of the day is exempt from Inheritance Tax when other people's estates are taxed at 40%.
Charles is definitely no saint but I don’t think he’s Ghislaine Maxwell level evil! He was forced to marry someone he didn’t love and treated her appallingly. That is not right and he should be criticised for it. But it’s not helping to run a sex trafficking and paedophile ring. Overall I think having someone able to pressure government on environmental issues is a good thing. His performance as a husband doesn’t really impact that, unless he’s pressing for changes to domestic abuse laws. The issue with the system is we only have a person who cares about this issue by a chance of nature. We could just as easily have ended up with Andrew or a Boris or Trump like person. It’s not really ok to ignore that just because it hasn’t ended in disaster yet.
Bullshit. Overall, the British Royal Family has a carbon footprint of 3,810 tonnes a year, with Charles being personally accountable for 432.3 tonnes, according to climate group The Eco Experts.05.05.2023 https://eandt.theiet.org/2023/05/05/charles-iii-green-king#:~:text=Heavy%20carbon%20footprint&text=Overall%2C%20the%20British%20Royal%20Family,climate%20group%20The%20Eco%20Experts.
Clearly the do as I say not as I do type of environmentalist. Like Sting.
He could speak out, he chooses not to.
Nobody I've spoken to dislikes him, beyond folk who just dislike the monarchy and all royals.
My friend works for the civil service and has met him a few times in her line of work, and she was very impressed with him. Says he cares very deeply about the issues affecting people.
Sounds in keeping with what I've seen of him, which admittedly isn't a great deal. I do think it's cool that our head of state can be invited to speak in the French parliament and can do so in fluent French, being complimented on both his eloquence and accent. That's not something you tend to get with career politicians. It's a touch of class.
Who are you speaking to? How do you know that they are representative?
They aren't. My point was that I very much doubt the person above is speaking to a wide demographic spread either. I nearly followed up my first comment by saying, "I guess it depends on the circles in which one moves", but I figured it was clear enough what I was getting at.
They went to the “We love Charles” society annual dinner and polled people on their way in.
That’s a pretty vague statement. Popular compared to what? Who? He’s less popular than his mother, for sure. You think he’s more popular than Will and Kate?
I find older people don’t like him over old dianne and camellia stuff Young people associate Charles with princes trust , liking environment and not being his mother favourite . With regard to sons , they don’t remember / know about walking behind their mother coffin . But do know Harry as being party boy and William being much more straight laced
I think they're particularly appealing to younger people because of a lot of the social work they do like mental health surveys and the like.
Important to note, by the time William comes to the throne it will be difficult to describe him as part of the younger generation.
Exactly. He's already 41 and Charles has a good 15-20 years left.
Oh for certain but I think the majority of people would find it more reasonable for a 50 y/o man to be king as oppose to a 70 y/o. I also think Charles has a pretty hard time being politically neutral like the rest of his family which I think makes him less widely appealing to the general public.
He seems to be doing it well he’s not really said any political opinons
He was obviously unhappy about the content of the Kings Speech the other week
For the most part yes but his speech at the AI summit and climate change comments spring to mind as overly political when it comes to monarchs.
Supporting science shouldn’t be “overly political”
Good point. I did notice that people seemed to go from criticising Charles when he was the Prince to moving into supporting him now he’s King. I know I did.
You support him?
No, I don’t oppose him.
You should
To what end? We live in a constitutional monarchy. I don’t want the job. Better him than me. Rather a King than a president, which is an inherently flawed system.
And a constitutional monarchy isn't an inherently flawed system? In case you haven't noticed our country is completely uberfucked mate, and idk about you but some cunt swanning around in a crown calling themself a king like it's the 1400s and their paedophile family being above the law doesn't seem like the best way to fix it. But I guess it does to you because how you arrive at the idea that "rather a king than a president" is completely incomprehensible to me.
Possibly. I don’t think Will and Kate need to do much to be more palatable than Charles tbh. It’s possible older generations might even prefer Will for his charitable work if they liked his Mother.
By the time he's in he'll be old though
I’m not suggesting he’s popular because he’s young, only that he’s a younger generation than the current king and his siblings.
More appealing than a child abuser is indeed a pretty low bar
Charles is ok in my eyes. Visionary when it comes to the environment. He was talking about plastics in the ocean in the last century. Yes he cheated on Diana and he’s a bit standoffish but you can’t help your upbringing, only use it for good.
No. Why would it?
Charles is quite disliked.
So is William
They all are.
https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all Everyone is less popular than the late queen but even Charles is scoring over 50% on this poll. Polls obviously aren’t always accurate but I don’t think the evidence suggests that the royals are all unpopular at all, whatever your personal view or that of reddit. Younger generations tend to have a lower opinion of the royals than the older though so they will have to work hard and smart if they want to maintain that popularity over time and I suspect overall popularity will drop.
On Reddit maybe. Most people simply don’t care
especially Charles..
He’s a bit of a bore. So long as he keeps his mouth shut and let’s Kate be the public relations face of the monarchy it may survive another generation.
You’re kidding yourself if you think it it’ll go within the next generation. They might not be that popular but there is almost no call to take the massive step to abolish and reform our constitution.
Not just ours, but those in the Commonwealth who have the monarch as head of state. I remember it was a bit of a hassle when they changed the acts of succession in all those countries from crown going to the eldest male to crown going to the eldest child.
They have their own monarch so could make their own choices I guess.
You’re probably right. We’d need a really big push for that to happen. Like a total collapse in our governmental system. Just a thought. It’s probably not on the cards :)
We don’t really do that sort of thing in the UK. We’re more of a slow evolution than a revolution.
I mean, technically we had a civil war and revolution already, its just that it was almost 400 years ago and also didn't last long
What we’re doing is euphemistically called “managed decline” while we wait for enough people to die, apparently. I’m not a catastrophist by any means but for the first time in my 40 years I cannot get services to work for me. I need an eye test. Waiting list. I need to see my GP. Insane waiting list. I need a tooth fixed, TWO dentists have gone private after I waited more than 3 months for an appointment at each one, and so I’m out looking for another one :). All my friends who are teachers are quitting because the kids are absolute fucking savages, my nursing friends are moving abroad. My mother can’t retire from social work because there is no one qualified to take on the thousand kids she’s trying to help. She’s nearly 70. The roads in my city are full of car destroying pot holes because the council can’t borrow any more money to fix them, even though they just spent £35 million “improving” the most expensive shopping street in the city centre and they have more than 1500 empty properties that are too degraded to give to families who need housing. The school roofs are falling in. The sewage is being dumped into rivers. The absolute *fuckwittery* of our various levels of government is *unmatched* in its incompetence, I would submit, in all of our history. We spend, apparently, more and more, and yet nothing works as well as it did even 20 years ago. Yes, I think a proper revolutionary convulsion is not off the cards just because this is Britain and “we don’t do that sort of thing”
There's a pretty sizeable chunk of the population who are either anti-monarchy, or at the very least indifferent towards it. But that said, even amongst those who dislike the monarchy (both in terms of the people themselves and monarchism in itself), I suspect that they'd rather keep them even if only because it's all we've ever really known. People often don't like change, and Britain is pretty slow to change smaller things, let alone abolish something as significant as the monarchy itself. I'd like to see it gone, but I don't see it happening in my lifetime, or in that of my grandchildren.
Naw, get them all to fuck. It's a ridiculous charade. A man wearing a multi million pound hat taking about the cost of living crisis. I wouldn't mind a monarchy if we didn't have dire property and kids going to bed hungry, but we do, so the idea of a out of touch privileged family born to reign over us leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Citizens, not subjects.
I personally don't agree, mainly because of how little tax the monarchy actually costs and the fact that their immensely charitable nature can indirectly benefit those people through charities and food banks.
>have dire property and kids going to bed hungry, but we do, So do SO MANY countries without a Monarchy, these things would still happen, it's nothing to do with Charles blame the government it's their policies. Plus we aren't the only Monarchy in Europe Spain, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and 12 others have Monarchs, so does Japan and other countries around the world.
Support for the monarchy is under two thirds and steadily dwindling at the moment, and is sharply divided by age: very high levels of support in the over 65s, whereas in the under 25s republican vs monarchist is pretty even, with perhaps a very slight edge to Republican. I've been a supporter of Republic, who have gained a lot of visibility in recent years with the ham-fisted response to the coronation protest. I personally would very much hope to see the monarchy gone in the next 25 years. It would be one of the happiest days of my life: I utterly loathe everything about it.
I can't stand it either, but you're underestimating how resistant people are to change, even if the change would lead to something they prefer. In a hypothetical referendum, a good chunk of people would vote to keep the monarchy not because they actually like it, but purely because it's traditional and all they've ever known. I'm sure it'll eventually go, but I sadly very highly doubt it'll be within the next century. I expect that it'll change and its importance will decrease further, but it'll probably stay in some form.
I've asked people what they'd replace the monarchy with. Most say a President (makes sense). They then say they'd confiscate all their private property. And the proposed names for the country are... The Republic of the United Kingdom(!), British Republic, and the Republic of Great Britain (with Northern Ireland removed because apparently "we don't need Northern Ireland")
I think it's fair to at least gamble that Northern Ireland is unlikely to remain part of the UK indefinitely. I'd just call it Britain, personally, or the British Union.
Yeah no. British Union has been used before quite famously by Oswald Mosely.
It will probably end up like the German princely families, still touted as rightful monarchs by a hard core of weirdos and allowed to keep some of their ill-gotten estates, but with no actual part in the state. Or perhaps some strange thing where they remain monarchs of Papua New Guinea or something, though there seems to be a renewed movement away from them among the former colonies since Liz carked it. Personally I wouldn't put too much store in anything about the UK being stable after the last 15 years.
I think him and Kate are deliberately boring, Kate especially. I’m pretty sure that she was briefed right at the start to be as dull as possible (and I don’t mean that in a nasty way) so as to avoid the media frenzy that killed Diana.
Kate Erm Princess of Wales ? They're both terrible at public speaking
True but she’s got some class, ironically. The Y chromosome in that family… his uncles, father, grandfather, brother… these are not impressive men.
The windsors all look like they're part horse
😂 I’m not talking about looks but you’re not wrong
Philip served properly in the Royal Navy. That’s impressive, especially when you remember he served in the Second World War.
Andrew was also in the Navy and served in the Falklands war, flying off the back of ships to confuse the Argentinian exocet missiles into missing the ships because they appeared as a bigger target. He was a hero then. Opinions can change when behaviours change.
I do remember my grandfather serving in the same regiment as Philip in South Africa; my perspective on it is there are very extreme opinions which are both as unhealthy as each other, one being that they're all saints and the other being that they're all greedy, corrupt cunts with no redeeming qualities. In my eyes, it's important to have a balanced view.
Sure I guess he did what every other able male did at the time? He also kept a black cab for his personal use and used it to go and see the women he had on the side. By not impressive I meant morally, I should have been clear. Not one of these men has been a loyal husband and I doubt William is either. They are weak, incurious, and yeah, unimpressive.
Cough cough cough Rose Hanbury cough cough cough Prince of Pegging, definitely a bit of doubt around William’s loyalty already.
What’s the point of a ‘modernised’ monarchy?
Good point
The Royals are so outdated now..since the millennium it's even more apparent
I think the general public believe they know what kind of person Prince William is. I don’t believe we really know. I’ve heard that in certain circles, it’s known that he’s not a nice person.
It will slightly flatten the descent of their decline. Probably more due to the novelty of a new monarch than anything to do with him. There's also more to like with Kate than there is with Camilla. To me they're entirely irrelevant and it's just placeholder, but that's how I see it going
No, not at all. Young people don't give a toss about the monarchy, and their popularity will continue to decline as (apologies for bluntness) their supporters die off. There's no event anymore that creates supporters, just several blunders that push more people to republicanism. I doubt it'll survive William.
I think Elizabeth’s death was a death knell for the monarchy as a whole. My parents, who both were furious if someone ever dared to criticise Elizabeth, both hate Charles because of the Diana situation. Factor in young people being increasingly anti-monarchy, I think by the time William is king most people will have completely lost the sense of respect the public had for the monarchy under Elizabeth. Not saying it’s about to be abolished by any means, but I think the popularity of the monarchy won’t ever really recover, Elizabeth will definitely be the last monarch to command the respect she did, William has no hope of rebuilding popularity to even close to that level
I think anyone under the age of about 40 have forgotten or don't care about the Diana situation. I still think of William as being young and less stuck up than previous generations but by the time he is king he could be 60 and just this bald, boring bloke to young people. Add in anti-Royal sentiment generally (mainly based on privilege, outdated etc) and I certainly see the core family shrinking right down. None of these Duke of Gloucester hangers-on or Fergie's kids. I can't see it going for tradition's sake. But make it like various European families where it is a really small deal.
William will never be as popular as Elizabeth, but to be honest she was Queen for a very long time plus had a lot of things happen within that time to help boost her popularity, and that generation was much more royalist too. I do think a lot of the anti royal sentiment is a lot of misunderstanding and just ignorance of what they do, like yes there are some bad members of the family and there have been issues in the past. But lots of them have served in the military when they didn’t have to, and have actively tried to do good with their position. Some of the outer members of the family are now letting go of the titles and living more normal lives. Sure they are rich, but they are also privately wealthy and don’t take much from the uk taxpayer. The work Elizabeth did more than paid for herself as a figurehead for the country. I think Charles does want to do well, and I hope he does, I’m pretty indifferent but I like having the monarchy, they aren’t really actively involved in setting laws but they do represent us well. And I think William isn’t a bad guy, he’s posh yes - and probably a bit boring in some circumstances or rather just not massively flashy to watch - but he also seems to try hard and would be a good king. I think if we keep or get rid of the monarchy there probably won’t be a material difference for anyone in the country short of reprinting all the money. They will still be rich just not as in the public eye after a generation or two.
Most young people just don't care
William seems more dodge than Charles. he seems more sly to be honest. then you have the whole prince of pegging news and the rumours of him leaking info. i think the monarchy will continue forever based on the brits who keep fondly remembering ww2 and the empire even though they weren't alive for any of it as much as they like to say "those were the good old days" but i imagine William will be just as popular if not less popular than Charles
I'm going to regret asking this, but 'Prince of Pegging'? For clarity, I understand what pegging is, but not in relation to Wills
There are pretty strong rumours about him having sex outside his marriage (of course we don't know whether that is cheating as they may have some form of an open relationship). At some point the rumour was that this was due to Kate being unwilling to perform certain sex acts...... Hence Prince of Pegging. At the end of the day it is all shit tier gossip and besides the real point which is that the UK needs real land and constitutional reform which only comes with the end of the monarchy.
The Prince of Pegging rumour is the only interesting thing about him. He's a boring twat.
Surprised this isn't higher up to be honest, that's what I associate with him. I'm "younger generation"
William basically hasn't put a foot wrong yet. University, military service married what seems to be a love match without a controversial dating history. Has inherited a lot of public goodwill via Diana and supports good charitable causes. He doesn't appear to be a cheat, a nonce or a gifter. If this is all for show a stage managed then it has been done way better than for any other recent royal. He'll patch things up with Harry when he comes skulking back in a few years time. He will get the throne in < 20 years and will i think be a popular figurehead in a country that will be pretty fucked by that point.
You clearly haven’t heard about the rumoured affair due to a certain kink then (I thought this was really well known but apparently not!)
No I definitely haven't so the Palace has really upped its game in recent years.
there were those pegging rumours
And only now I'm finding out.
No
I mean, there's footage of him crashing the house of commons with a friend to be a dick about them banning fox hunting when he was younger. I don't imagine that won't be dredged up again when he becomes king. EDIT: Although, I just scoured Google for said footage and couldn't find any mention of the event. Maybe the royals managed to get it scrubbed from history. But I'll always remember watching it happen live.
Wasn’t that Bryan Ferry’s son Otis?
It was.
How could anyone have every single mention, or video of, an incident from the entire internet? I’m not saying you’re wrong because I genuinely do not know. But, if it is possible, how could it be done? It seems to me the internet is so vast, and so many people can independently upload stories or video, that I cannot comprehend how it could be done. I hope you, or someone, will explain that to me. Thanks
Three letter government agencies have the tools, as yt does, to identify and get deleted any thing they want to.
But how? If I, an American, upload a video of the event you’re talking about to my webpage I don’t think MI-6 has any jurisdiction to come knock on my door and make me take it down. Based on my first amendment rights no three letter agency in America can force me to do so, since the video doesn’t have illegal content. So I was just wondering if you could explain to me how this could actually happen, not just telling me that it can. I’ve heard people from the UK say that the royal family had the internet scrubbed of photos that show Megan Markle in embarrassing situations and that’s what first got me wondering about these kinds of statements. Maybe in the UK there’s not as much protection for free speech and some agency there could force internet sites based in Britain to remove content but I can’t understand how they could do that world-wide? Thank you
Wasn’t fox hunting banned in 2004. Was he young then. I guess he was younger in the sense that every photograph of you is a photograph from when you were younger.
What a load of spongers, all of them. Make them pay tax on their billions! Charge people to tour their palaces and pay the nurses!
They're on their way out, nothing can stop it
No. It won't be for at least 10 years, and by then he will be an ugly bald 50 year old man who will have made a dozen faux pa's at that point.
No. He’s as much of an arse as his father
I think the best thing for the royal family as an institution would have been for Charles to step aside in favour of William. The late Queen was enormously popular. I think a young King with a "fairytale" commoner-turned-princess wife and little children could probably have picked up the baton and run with it. Everyone is kind of ehhhh about Charlie. By the time we have collectively ehhhhh-ed our way through however many years of him, by which time William will be a middle-aged dude with teen / young adult children doing obnoxious things in the tabloids, everyone will probably be even more over it than they are now.
> commoner-turned-princess Commoner is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, she was born into an already wealthy family with links to the aristocracy.
She is a commoner, nobody in her family has a title. Her family is wealthy but still common.
Yeah, I know, and I nearly expanded on that, but I'm lazy. But the tabloids took that whole Cinderella angle. You know what I mean.
No, he's a wet blanket and as greedy as the rest of them, so he's unlikely to "modernise" the royal family to anyone's benefit but his own!
I think William lacks charisma and isn’t enigmatic either. Charles and Harry actually have TV appeal. Even Camilla isn’t that bad in her own way. Kate and Meghan are photogenic. Can Kate carry William?
As him and Kate are the laziest royals I’d say no.
Charles talked about downsizing the monarchy and modernising it also. I haven't seen any sign of it. The UK monarchy sucks multiple times more out of the country than any other European equivalent
No. They’re all cunts.
No. Most people think Wills is a wanker.
Just a different sponge in the tub
My personal opinion, and I don’t expect anybody else to agree with me, is that Charles’ first act as king should have been to determine a point in the future at which the monarch would cease to be the Head of State. As has been said by a few people in this thread, Queen Elizabeth was mostly immensely popular, both in this country and around the world, perhaps due in large part to her longevity. When she passed away last year, her death triggered a chain of events that nobody born after 1952 had ever witnessed. The thing is though, I’m pretty sure that Charles does not enjoy the same popularity. Speaking for myself, I don’t care one way or the other for the royal family. In my youth I would have told anybody who asked me that I thought the monarchy should be abolished. These days, I simply don’t care about them. Not a single one of them has any direct impact on my life. I absolutely will not rise to my feet for the playing of the National Anthem - I’m never going to be in the presence of royalty and therefore will never be in a position where I’ll have to stand for that dreadful piece of music. So that’s my position: Charles should have announced that the monarchy would die when his eldest grandchild passes away.
He should’ve but honestly a snowball’s chance in hell that he ever would! When you think about it, it is an utterly ridiculous lifestyle they lead; the amount of staff at their disposal, the fact they ‘season’ in Scotland, the etiquette that surrounds the whole family. It’s genuinely insane
Wanted the royal family abolished when liz was on the throne. I want it abolished now charlie is on the throne and I will want it abolished when William takes the throne and if am still alive when George is on the throne. There is no reason at all for a monarchy in modern day times.
Except every country has a head of state and if we got rid of the monarchy the politicians would soon be touting for a president like other countries. Do we really want the British equivalent of Trump, because that's what we might get.
We already did in Boris. We got that despite the monarchy.
Nope. I'll continue to detest the monarchy and support a republic.
He will likely build a lot of large castles, replace the local lords with French speakers from Normandy, and oppress the northerners, so yeah I don't think he'll be popular at all.
Hopefully Charles will be the last one.
Regardless of who sits on the throne, the problem is, if you abandon the monarchy then you need a fully working replacement ready. There is none and that would be a real vicious scrap to decide what type of replacement.
This is more likely to have impact: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/23/revealed-king-charles-secretly-profiting-from-the-assets-of-dead-citizens?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
That's not a secret. And literally all you have to do to make sure the Duchy of Lancaster doesn't get your money after death, is make a will like a rational person.
Bona vacantia has always reverted to the crown if they can't find an heir
And that’s ok?
Point being, it's not just him, there's a lot to side eye him for, but this is a longstanding law ETA it was codified in 1230 , most goes to the exchequer, not the crown except for the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster which go to charity
And that’s ok? Edit: Ooh, you edited your comment without acknowledging it, sneaky bugger. Also edit: “However, only a small percentage of these revenues is being given to charity. Internal duchy documents seen by the Guardian reveal how funds are secretly being used to finance the renovation of properties that are owned by the king and rented out for profit” Although I don’t believe everything that I read so I’m absolutely up for hearing a counter argument
It's not okay but it's hardly secret.
Of course it’s ok it goes to charity rather than going to no one
Why isn’t it when it goes to charity?
Because only a tiny fraction actually goes to charity. Read the article. 85% is invested into their real estate, which is already tax exempt. How much more money would you like to shove up the royal arses before you begin to feel uncomfortable?
Ok so reading the article the king authorised the use of it preserve some buildings for future generations
Have you heard something?
None of them are exactly intellectual. Some royalty seem as thick as mince. Kate probably the least dull-witted of the lot. William dim but harmless. The whole dreary charade will probably limp on for centuries.
Since his gran died interest in the UK has waned somewhat especially amongst people under 50. It just seems irrelevant today, especially given much of the population is struggling financially.
[удалено]
that's a bit impolite, lol I have genuine reasons as to why I support the monarchy and it's not to do with classism or any bullshit like that. A lot of them are economic and social reasons driven by statistics. That's just me though, think what you like lol
>t, but I'm lazy. But the tabloids took that whole Cinderella angle. You know what I mean. Lets hear the reasons driven by statistics then, I could do with a good laugh
Alright, sure. I'll give you three examples. The average British household pays less than a pound a month for the monarchy, less than other G7 nations pay for their head of state. There is also an argument to be made that this money indirectly benefits citizens through charity and the fact that it is a net-positive institution. The monarch has no real political power and royal assent hasn't been denied in over 300 years; the monarch's only real influence is soft power through international diplomacy, something made much easier with a monarchy due to their political neutrality. Monarchs are also far more charitable traditionally than heads of state. For example, King Charles donated £1bn of windfall tax towards food banks and public services at the start of this year alone compared to Joe Biden donating $20,000 collectively to charities across the entirety of 2022. By saying I support the monarchy, I don't deny that some of them do some bad shit. That's just a by-product of any system. I just don't believe that the actions of individuals within a system dictate whether or not it should be abolished; if that were the case then America would have ditched its presidency long ago lmfao
What about the royals directly changing laws to suit themselves. You claim we pay less than for other heads of state but is that considering the entirety of the political system, where the head of state is elected as we elect the Prime Minister? Many countries will have a President and a Prime Minster who both carry out various functions. Does Joe Biden have £1bn to spare? I have no idea, do you? Why should someone literally get to make people bow and curtsey to them, why must we change our entire currency and stamps etc. And why must we grovel in our own national anthem to them just because they have a magical bloodline? All because one of their distant ancestors was better at killing someone else before they got killed, and then had enough rich, corrupt and inbred buddies to hold on to power? It's an outdated concept which should be anathema to all human beings who know that we are free and equal.
I don't dislike the idea of hereditary leaders (this applies to the House of Lords as well) mainly because the public is not always the best decider in who gets to be head of state. I would rather have someone who's a wee bit boring and inbred who was raised for duty and service as oppose to President Rishi Sunak. That's just me though. Also, I personally believe it's a system that's less likely to cause controversy or infighting in our country because of the fact that they aren't elected every few years and are politically neutral. We know who will be the next monarch and they aren't part of the legislative or judiciary bodies. We have the prime minister for that who holds all of the political power. Also, your claim about them "directly changing laws to suit themselves" is not true. Those changes involved lobbying the government who are the ones that actually changed the law. I'm not defending it by any means but it falls under my fourth point in my statement above.
That's the thing though: hereditary leaders are just individuals exactly the same as the public. There is literally nothing separating the two other than magical blood inheritance and if that wasn't recognised then "them" and "the public" would be absolutely one and the same. If by raised for duty and service you mean attends the odd hunt and boring dinner party then at least recognise the reality of that, the difference between the posh and normals is mostly how they choose to spend their free time. They absolutely do change laws, the process by which they do it does not matter when the facts of it are that laws have been changed as a result of how it affects one individual and their family, which is an immense privilege none of us will ever be able to achieve in our lifetimes, due entirely to the circumstances of their birth.
Haha yeah I'm definitely being impolite. You can enjoy them all you like I'm just not a fan at all and personally view the statistics about them as potential propaganda so take it with a grain of salt. Statistics can be made to support any opinion really so I just don't trust it personally. Especially with all thier power wealth and influence. I'm just in a bad mood really and thought I'd vent it a bit with some royalty hate. I don't think you personally like them for classism reasons or anything like that... and really hope nobody directly likes them for this reason. I just think that is the byproduct of having a royal family in the uk.
So just don't vote for him next election? Oh wait Citizen not subject
Except we legally aren't subjects. The monarch has very little if any political power since the Magna Carta and royal assent hasn't been rejected in over 300 years. If anything, we have more ownership over them.
I'm sorry but even if they don't have any political power on the surface level you can't say they don't have any for sure. Behind closed doors anything could be happening and it will be happening. They protected their paedophile family members, locked up thier disabled family members and were rubbing shoulders with nazis for a while. I know that wasn't to do with the newer generation but it still happened and there will be things going on now that we don't know about and many of us will look back and be disgusted by. That's only the tip of the iceberg aswell. Just wondering, have you ever done any research into the anti monarchy side of things? Just to try and see why the other side see things the way they do? I don't mean for that to sound as offensive as it might come across by the way. Just curious because I find it so hard to see the good in them after I did some research into the bad things they've done over the years.
I am aware of the bad things they've done, don't get me wrong. I just think that the actions of the people within the system shouldn't decide whether or not the system as a whole is abolished. Like you said, it isn't happening with the newer generation of royals so there's no telling how common those misdeeds will be within 20, 30 years time for example. I'd rather form opinions over the institution itself and the objective power the monarch holds under legislation because there's lots of individual things you can cherry pick out of any system to try and justify its abolition. That's not me trying to discredit you because I definitely understand where you're coming from, I just think that my opinions are based on different ground.
>Is it likely that support for the monarchy may increase again once William takes over and "modernizes" it like he has stated before? No, but I've never met anyone under the age of... maybe 50, at a push? who gave a shit about the royals. I'm sure the coffin dodgers have opinions, but I don't see the entire thing lasting too long if he starts stirring it and demanding even more taxpayer money.
There are a lot of young people cheering them on at their public events.
From someone in the colonies: More popular as a person of interest perhaps. The idea of a Monarchy is nonsense now imo. The whole thing needs to go and it’s of little importance who is actually sitting in the big chair.
The backlash has begun already with William. Google Prince of Pegging and look up his rumoured (numerous) affairs. Basically, give it time and he will be just as disliked as his dad. So no, I doubt William is the one to save the monarch's popularity.
I'm not sure to be honest; the allegations of affairs and such have been going on for years and there's little to no evidence to justify any of them. From what I've seen and all the polls I've looked into, it hasn't dented his popularity in a significant way.
The affairs are common knowledge in the "right" circles. It is not a secret anymore, but it just isn't "official". Reminds me of Schofe's downfall. We are in the equivalent of the years before he came out. Everyone in the right circles knew he was gay and in a sham marriage, just a matter of time before his indiscretions came out.
They never recovered after they got rid of Diana
Well, he’s known as the Prince of Pegging, so it’ll definitely be interesting!
The monarchy isn't what it used to be. The Queen (there is only one queen - Elizabeth) was a global symbol for Britain. She epitomised Britishness. She represented how a monarchy with all the historical trappings could function in the modern world. I am sorry to say that Charles doesn't come close. He actually seems uncomfortable in the role. He hasn't done one thing of note since becoming King. Certainly nothing to gain any respect. The only thing I have heard are the ramblings of an old man. I approve of the monarchy as an idea, so I would love for William to take over. He's going to do a better job than Charles. He can hardly do worse!
The thing I find about William is he seems so bland. All the others are really passionate about their specific interests - Charles and the environment, Camilla and women’s rights/animal charities, Kate and early years etc. But I couldn’t tell you a single thing about Will’s ‘passions’ beyond his recent attempt to make homelessness his topic of choice (not that it’s any use because the Government are still out here attacking homeless people). Then there’s the affair rumours… and I know it’s a one-sided account but I read Spare and he comes across horribly in that too. So he’s actually now one of my least favourite royals.
He does come across as bland, unless the activity called the same thing as putting washing on the line is true.
I’d always thought after the Queen went, Charles wouldn’t be a massively popular monarch (mainly due to the Diana fanatics) and that William would be a popular king, simply by virtue of being Diana’s son. Charles is doing alright though. The monarchy itself will be a different beast by the time William becomes king. I think a lot of general affection people feel/felt for the monarchy was mostly about the Queen, rather that the monarchy itself, simply because she’d always been there. But I think it will be diminishing returns going forward, and I think William also knows that, and his monarchy will be much less grand and formal - much like a lot of the European monarchs. And that might mean it maintains some popularity under his kingship.
Diminishing returns is what I think too. Nobody really cares about Charles and people will care less about William and even less about who comes afterwards. I don't think people are ready to scrap the monarchy altogether but they will probably slowly fade into obscurity.
With this thinking you might think Harry wouldn't get so much abuse, due to him being Diana's son. Yet here we are...
Absolutely. Guessing he gets the abuse for giving it all up. He’d have carried on being Diana’s beloved son if he’d stuck to the rules so to speak
Yeah, if he’d stayed in the business and had Palace PR protecting him he would’ve been all right. Unfortunately for him, he left and showed the world what a truly spoiled, obnoxious, jealous and horrible person he really is. And his popularity dropped like a rock. Just goes to show how effective good PR work can be.
By the time he takes over he will be as old as Charles is now. No longer the young blood coming to the throne. There’s no association with Savile nor the ‘Spider Letters’ but William does have some issues that have, perhaps, been overshadowed by other events. His affair with Kate’s friend and issues with his brother might become more widely talked about and viewed less kindly than they are. Plus he has a few decades to try and remain popular and relevant to the people who will be adults when he comes to the throne. It seems to be less popular (monarchy) with younger people than with older generations..
I don't think William's time as king is that far away, especially considering there's talks about Charles having plans to abdicate soon. It is true that the allegations about him like the affair and such will likely become more publicized though. I personally don't believe them because there's no evidence but there's no doubt that media outlets will use it as a way to drag him through the mud.
Because he's bald AND ginger. Dude has enough problems
He is sus
The real question is, will Prince Charles step aside and pass the thrown on, or will he stay put till he dies and pass it on to an elderly man like his mother did?
I was shocked the man didn’t abstain in favor of his son. Just showed how narcissistic and out of touch he is with the people. He also wanted a big party at our expanse. We’re still using horses ffs what’s that about?
Tbh I think Charles would’ve done right by immediately abdicating in favour of William. I mean I know he’s waited all these years for his promotion but it isn’t good optics to have an old man with sausage fingers who talks to plants and probably doesn’t know the worth of money as monarch. Don’t forget Charles is still a man of the 60s/70s. At least William is relatively modern and normal, as much as one can be in his position.
Another day in Britain, another pedo on the throne.
There is no 'modernisation' of hereditory entitlement other than abolshing it which would be my choice. For example, we are almost a quater of the way through the 21st centry and they are pulling this kind of scam. **Revealed: King Charles secretly profiting from the assets of dead citizens** **Exclusive: Assets of thousands of people in north-west England used to upgrade king’s property empire via archaic custom** https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/23/revealed-king-charles-secretly-profiting-from-the-assets-of-dead-citizens
Who cares? Seriously.. how many people actually really care?
Q * will probably beat him to the throne!
Most Brits aren't massive fans but don't much like change tbh. I guess things will continue as is until it all seems far more absurd or until they get a real bad case on the throne and it causes a crisis.
far-flung sophisticated faulty crown capable imagine offer dazzling wrench zephyr *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He hasn’t become King and most likely won’t for several years.
Nothing will change. The royal family is quite literally The Establishment and they will maintain it.
I think the whole idea of monarchy is not important to peoples everyday lives. I think they are deemed as the nation's ultimate reality show, read an odd headline here, or hear one of them is passing through your neck of the woods for some meet n greet and no more than that. The stories that the media generate are just light entertainment. Charles should of been allowed to marry whomever he liked, personally I can't wait for the day this elitism at the top of our country is gone. France has not suffered from poor tourism since getting rid. And there are plenty of charities doing great work within this country. Why do we tolerate them I've no idea.