Queen to step down in five years - says Royal source

I'm rather fond of the tradition of the monarchy. I view them as the deadman switch on our government and laws passed. While it's very rarely used, the Governor General can put the boots to our elected officials.

I don't really want Charles to be our King though - he seems like a bit of a prat. I hope the Queen reconsiders this idea, abdication is not traditionally a positive thing in that family and it doesn't really serve us well. I don't want to have to pay for all the letterhead changes and new currency before it's needed.

----

If I had to choose between the monarchy and a Curly Wurly, the Curly Wurly will win every time. Luckily, I can have both.



[edit on 16-11-2008 by Duzey]

reply to post by Mercenary2007


I don't know about that. I heard a while back that Charles has been playing with the idea of making Camilla 'Queen'. I am sure that once he is king he can do what ever he wants. The only thing is I think the memory of Princess Diana will stand in the way.

On an entirely different tangent I am just wondering how Andrew Parker Bowles felt when he found out about Charles and his wife...were they separated prior to them fooling around or was it suggested to him to "look the other way"? Harking back to the old days of "rights of the lords" poor thing

Before people start slagging off the Royal Family of the UK, I would like to point out that we are not the ONLY country to have a Constitutional Monarchy:- The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Luxembourg, Monaco, Liechtenstein and Sweden also have one.

Because of the fact that the UK is a Consitutional Monarchy it has enabled UK plc to have remained a stable nation since 1651. There is a higher percentage of the population that support and love the Royal Family than the Government.

Originally posted by WishForWings
The Monarchy has long since lost all power anyway, there is no point for it anymore.
Personally I think it's a waste of the English tax payers money, so the little princesses can have fancy dress parties and actually EARN their money like everyone else.

Not being a subject I can ask questions like the following;

Aren't there many who subscribe to the theory that all the Royals have done is conceal the extent of their power so as not to draw attention to their undertakings. Aren't they allegedly secretly in charge?

reply to post by Maxmars


Only if you believe the conspiracy theories about the Royal Family on this website.

i think Queen Elizabeth is the last of the true royals in england i suspect my country will wait till she steps down or dies and then we will push for a republic especially if charles is next in line, if he steps down and william is next i doubt there will be too much desire to change from the status quo.

we had a vote here around 2000 to become a republic or keep the queen as our head of state, me personally i would have liked to be a republic but i voted to keep the queen, basically because our polititians wouldnt listen to the will of the people and if thats the type of republic they are going to try to introduce they can stick it

The Queen is very dignified and has done nothing that causes us to be embarressed to have her as our Head of State, as much as we would like to be a republic the majority of Australians hold the Queen in high regard.

and lets face it becoming a republic doesnt put any extra money in my or other peoples pocket here so it isnt a big issue atm much to the ire of the republican movement.

reply to post by johnsky


What you said is true. I am American and like many others I simply just don't get the idea of the Monarchy. I guess we don't understand because we have no first hand experience living with royals. I have watched documentaries and read a little about it and still don't get the fascination, sort of like the Kennedy family in the US. I mean no offense but from an outsider they just seem surrounded by scandals and controversy.

[edit on 16-11-2008 by drock905]

reply to post by drock905


No more than any other family, it's just the tabloid press looking for a pound of flesh, especially when it's a dry day in the news.

Originally posted by drock905
reply to post by johnsky

 

What you said is true. I am American and like many others I simply just don't get the idea of the Monarchy. I guess we don't understand because we have no first hand experience living with royals. I have watched documentaries and read a little about it and still don't get the fascination, sort of like the Kennedy family in the US. I mean no offense but from an outsider they just seem surrounded by scandals and controversy.

[edit on 16-11-2008 by drock905]

Kennedy's, Clinton's, Bush's...

You do have a Royalty. Most of your elected politicians are from old East-coast WASP money. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers have consistently meddled with the affairs of your state for several generations.

Stop kidding yourself. The power and finances are always concentrated in the same few hands.

“Most of the powers once exercised by the monarch have now been devolved (transferred) to ministers.

ministers appointed by the monarchy, (see below)

In certain circumstances, however, the monarch retains the power to exercise personal discretion over issues such as appointing the prime minister and dissolving Parliament, even though these powers may never be used in practice, or may only be exercised symbolically”.

In theory we could elect a prime minister, and she could say no.

The important word above being MAY, she does hold these powers and could exercise them if she wished, parliament could not stop her.

“The Queen performs a range of important duties, such as summoning and dissolving Parliament and giving royal assent to legislation passed by the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly".

The Queen formally appoints important office holders, including the prime minister and other government ministers, judges, officers in the armed forces, governors, diplomats, bishops and some other senior clergy of the Church of England.

Untill the queen formally appoints them, they don't legally hold office.


"She also grants peerages, knighthoods and other honours. In international affairs, the Queen (as head of state) has the power to declare war and make peace, to recognise foreign states, to conclude treaties and to take over or give up territory”.

This is a hell of a lot of power for one family to hold. Whether or not you think she will use it.

Originally posted by WishForWings
The Monarchy has long since lost all power anyway, there is no point for it anymore.
Personally I think it's a waste of the English tax payers money, so the little princesses can have fancy dress parties and actually EARN their money like everyone else.

How is a waste of money when it directly brings in more revenue than it costs the taxpayer? This is before indirect revenue such as tourism. If the Monarchy is disestablished (and I would fight tooth and nail before I saw that happen) then what would the alternative be? A presidential system like in the US? If we disregard the fact that G W Bush should be enough of an argument in itself against that ever happening one of the great strengths of the British Monarchy is that it is politically neutral. Whilst there are some ceremonial political duties that remain for example the Royal Assent and the state opening of parliament, the Monarch remains above politics. IIRC the Royal Assent was last refused in 1707 and will likely never hapen again.

The Royal family, and the senior royals in particluar, are a huge asset to Great Britain. Remember that only The Queen and Prince Philip receive any money from the Civil List and they work very hard for it with a sense of duty to their country and their people that is unrivalled. The little princesses that you mentioned I suspect are Eugenie and Beatrice. Their father receives no money from the Civil List despite working as an ambassador for British business abroad. Oh and don't forget that, in 1982, he served his country in a war zone.

Princess Anne, the most hard working Royal after the Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh receives nothing from the civil list. Neither does Prince Charles, whose Duchy Estates which are working businesses pay tax. Oh, William and Harry - serve their country in the armed forces. Harry has fought in Afghanistan and William is flying helos in the RAF where he is training to be a search and rescue pilot - probably the only operational role that he is allowed to perform.

If you are going to make such fatuous statements at least get your facts right. Tell me one thing by the way, how have YOU served your nation?

FYI: The Crown Estate is now a statutory corporation run on commercial lines by the Crown Estate Commissioners and generates revenue of around £190 million for HM Treasury every year, greatly exceeding the costs of the Civil List.

Originally posted by wozza


If you are going to make such fatuous statements at least get your facts right. Tell me one thing by the way, how have YOU served your nation?

If this was meant for me would you like to tell me what I've said above that is not fact?

Originally posted by wozza
Tell me one thing by the way, how have YOU served your nation?

By giving it 80% of what I earn for the right to live on the planet I was born on.

I don't get what makes the Queen so special anyway. If she is only human, why is she more important then us?

And if she is human like us, drop the "bloodline" cr*p. Or tell us the truth about what it really means...

I would rather we didn't have a monarchy in the UK at all, but I can see the purpose of having the Royal Family as figureheads. I would however like to see the monarchy/civil list shrunk to just include the immediate family of the Queen. Enough of all this Dukedom/Earldom etc. crap, those days are long gone and these people have no real purpose. Their massive stately homes should all be given to the National Trust, and their fancy titles retired...bunch of hoity-toity hangers-on.

The best thing charles could do - IF he had a pair and would do it - is pass over for William.

Now he would make a fantastic king.

As an American I suppose my viewpoint dosent really matter but let me just say this: do you really want a Republic and having to risk your own Bush, Obama, Nixon or Carter? Trust me, stick with the monarchy - they have alot more class and dignity then any American president could ever hope to have.

Also, they serve as your "checks and balances" and a unifying force.

Originally posted by sotp
I would rather we didn't have a monarchy in the UK at all, but I can see the purpose of having the Royal Family as figureheads. I would however like to see the monarchy/civil list shrunk to just include the immediate family of the Queen. Enough of all this Dukedom/Earldom etc. crap, those days are long gone and these people have no real purpose. Their massive stately homes should all be given to the National Trust, and their fancy titles retired...bunch of hoity-toity hangers-on.

I suggest you read the above post by Wozza. Only HM The Queen and her Consort are on the Civil List. The rest of the Royal Family are 'self-supporting'. The same goes for the Dukes and Earls.

Incidently the Royal Family only costs each taxpayer approximately 64p a year - money well spent in my opinion

Originally posted by ChrisF231
As an American I suppose my viewpoint dosent really matter but let me just say this: do you really want a Republic and having to risk your own Bush, Obama, Nixon or Carter? Trust me, stick with the monarchy - they have alot more class and dignity then any American president could ever hope to have.

Also, they serve as your "checks and balances" and a unifying force.

That is one of the most sensible things that I have heard an American say on this topic, thankyou.

Any chance that she'll skip over Charles and let William reign?
The thought of that bar hag - that back door B**** - CAMELLA
as Queen or even Royal Consort ...

I'm not British, but I admit that following the royals and their
dysfunctional family is kinda fun.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Any chance that she'll skip over Charles and let William reign?
The thought of that bar hag - that back door B**** - CAMELLA
as Queen or even Royal Consort ...

Yeah, I know how you feel. I felt the same way when Teddy Roosevelt remarried. Edith Roosevelt, what a B****"! What about that pair of slags, Edith Wilson and Julia Tyler too.