Will a referendum on the monarchy happen after Queen Elizabeth passes?

News

As Queen Elizabeth keeps an iron grip on power with both petty hands, people have been thinking a lot about what Liz’s Last Stand will really mean, long-term, for the crown and for the line of succession. For years, Charles has operated with some regency-lite powers, and he probably enjoys the freedom he has as Prince of Wales, but still – the man is 72 years old and he’s still “waiting to be king.” And then people are considering what happens after Charles as well – for all the talk of “future king and future queen,” I sometimes wonder if British people are genuinely keen on Bill and Cathy. Anyway, a former BBC royal correspondent Jennie Bond has some thoughts about all of this:

Jennie Bond has claimed future generations of the Royal Family would support the UK becoming a republic if people voted for it in a referendum because they’d no longer have to live in a ‘goldfish bowl’. The journalist and television presenter, 70, who lives in south Devon and worked for 14 years as the BBC’s royal correspondent, said the Firm would be ‘fine’ if the country opted to go down the presidency route.

Speaking to Platinum magazine, the royal expert explained: ‘If the country wanted to go down the presidency route, I’d be perfectly happy. I think it would also be fine by the Royal Family — after all, who wants to live in a goldfish bowl all their lives? I firmly believe that if we had a referendum, the vast majority would vote for the status quo. Certainly while the Queen remains on the throne and, eventually, Prince Charles, who’s commanded a lot of respect in recent years, there is something undeniably stable which helps the nation.

‘It’s quietly comforting knowing that The Queen is there in the background and in the foreground when we want her. This was illustrated perfectly when she made her address during the pandemic. Hearing her say that the pandemic will pass and we will meet again was so reassuring. But that’s not surprising because she’s provided stability in all our lives.’

[From The Daily Mail]

I think a referendum vote on the monarchy would be interesting to see, especially if it did happen in the next decade or so. I’ve always thought that was probably one of the big reasons why the Crown is so cozy with Tory leaders – because Tory prime ministers would probably be the least likely to allow a referendum vote on the monarchy. But… after Liz passes on, there will be British politicians speaking openly about whether or not a hereditary monarchy needs to exist. That conversation will happen during King Charles’ reign. And who knows where it will go.

Also – a decade ago, I would have said that William would probably be okay with the monarchy fading away. But William doesn’t feel that way anymore. He’s waiting and plotting and incandescent with rage.

State Opening of Parliament

Royal Portrait

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid and WENN.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

93 Responses to “Will a referendum on the monarchy happen after Queen Elizabeth passes?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Mirage says:

    I think the UK working class really loves the Royal Family. And the middle class is indifferent to it. The only groups that may dislike them are in the ethnic minorities, but it’s more contempt that anything else.
    I think the royal family is here to stay!

    • Ines says:

      Yes. Also, I was here when the Queen Mother, died. You would have thought nobody cared about her, but the outpouring of patriotism and monarchic fervor at the time make me think twice. Same thing times 100 will happen when the Queen dies to the extent that it will take several years for that feeling to die down enough for people to even consider a referendum.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yeah, I’m not British, but I can anticipate the reaction when the queen dies. heck even when Phillip dies. I know there’s a popular thought that the monarchy wont last long after Charles, but I think there will actually be a groundswell of support as a result of the affection people feel for the Queen.

      • twoz says:

        The one time I attended the Melbourne Comedy Festival was the year the Queen Mum died, and so many British comedians who’d come out for it said “Thank GOD we’re out of the country!”

    • anotherlily says:

      Ethic minorities in the UK generally have a high regard for the monarchy.

    • Q says:

      “The only groups that may dislike them are in the ethnic minorities”

      I disagree with this. I think most are indifferent. At least the ones I know are.
      Same thing with the working and middle class. Most are indifferent.
      There is no active like or dislike for them.

  2. Sofia says:

    As someone who is a Brit – I don’t know.

    I feel like no-one here (in the UK) really likes referendums all that much, especially as how the last one went. And if the monarchy goes, so does the peerage system and I feel that a lot of people are far more invested in that than they would like to admit. A lot of people secretly (especially MPs and “new money” celebs/people) want titles and to be accepted by the aristos (Middletons anyone?).

    Plus I feel like that it’s going to take a big thing for a republic to be even brought into mainstream news. Last time it happened was with Diana but they still keep going. People may not like Charles but unless he’s got a massive scandal (no I don’t think Diana/Camilla count), he’s going to stay King till he’s dead. Same with William. He’s still popular as he’s considered Diana’s golden boy. He might not have the popularity he had 10-15 years ago, but it’s not like the general public hate him either. Also the royals/monarchy are so entrenched into our laws that it’ll be a hassle trying to remove them. Not to mention an entire branch of government takes its members from the peerage system.

    It might be apathy that’s keeping them, but it’s keeping them.

    ( I also feel that a lot of people secretly like all the pomp and circumstance that comes with having a royal family as well as the weddings )

    • Snuffles says:

      You may be right but I think most of the Commonwealth is ready to bail. By the time William is King it will only be of England.

      • Sofia says:

        Yes, I think that in the future the Commonwealth will become much smaller. Scotland seems to be almost on the way out (I think Nicola Sturgeon the other day was calling for the monarchy to be abolished or at least reduced).

      • SexyK says:

        This is when the monarchy and Tory party will miss Harry and beg him to come back. Its gonna be a mess. I can already see the headlines. Charles nor William has what it takes to keep Scotland with the UK. With Brexit being a mess, I see independence for Scotland.

      • Smalltown Girl says:

        I am Canadian and I don’t know anyone who really gives thought to abolishing the monarchy or leaving the commonwealth. I mean I don’t know anyone who really opposes it either, but I don’t think it is in the thought process. I think we are just used to the way it is.

      • Nic919 says:

        In Canada no one is actively looking to abolish it but many are like “why do we have an English queen on our money?” And if you are from Quebec they definitely don’t like the Anglo monarchs there. The recent troubles with the GG also remind people that it is silly to have what we have. No one needs an American style system, but an Irish one would work. It’s more apathy then anything that saves them. And you can bet when the cost of changing things for Charles happens that Canadians will be peeved except for the ones clinging to colonialism. This family has no connection to this country and their ancestors were directly responsible for setting up the genocide of indigenous people, so this is not an issue that will be going away.

      • Mercury says:

        Canadian here. I have thought the monarchy should be abolished. So do many of my family and peers. Spending $5 million on Kate and William’s last visit to Canada was appalling and a waste of money to me.

      • Keroppi says:

        Fellow Canadian chiming in. I agree with the others that it’s apathy and the status quo that saves them. I usually only hear people complaining about them when they are here on a royal tour and we have to pay for security, etc. And unless it’s H&M or W&K the press barely even covers the tour. You could easily miss any reference to them being in the country.

      • bobslaw says:

        Canadian here. Agree with what was said up-thread by Mercury. The fact that we have communities with boil water advisories which our governments seem incapable of (or unwilling to spend the money to do this work, and hold polluters accountable) fixing is a monumental problem. Paying Bill and Cathy to holiday in Canada does nothing for us. Providing for our least fortunate should be priority 1 IMHO.

      • OriginalLala says:

        Canadian here and #AbolishTheMonarchy!

      • alito says:

        I’m Canadian too, and I have always wanted to see all monarchies abolished. Superiority by birthright has no place in a modern world. It’s ridiculous that we have the queen of another country on our money, and that our government should need to refer to her in any way. I would LOVE to see it all end when Queen Elizabeth dies. I think that would be the perfect time for it. But like a lot of people on here are saying, that monarchy is so embedded in the laws that it would take a very determined effort to dismante it all. But in my opinion, it would be 100% worth the effort.

      • mazzie says:

        Another Canadian here (and formerly from another former British colony). Get rid of them. I agree that’s it apathy that keeps them here but honestly, we’re growing away from them. What’s their point?

        Which means, as soon as they hear rumblings of Republicanism, they’ll send a pair of royals here to visit and we’ll be paying for them.

      • Mouki's wife says:

        Another Canadian chiming in! I think it’s absurd that we pay for royal visits and security. We help people from all over the world come to our homeland to live in safety and peace. Most of the refugees and immigrants are not from the commonwealth so it really seems ridiculous! We certainly don’t get anything in return from the Family and we absolutely don’t need them. We have problems as Canadians that all this money could be better spent on. Oh and the Governor General is a silly job. And the current GG is just an awful person. I think the days of entitlement should be over.

    • Rae says:

      I agree with you Sofia. I think all the people milking it off the royalty will be the ones to keep the monarchy going for a while longer.

      As a Brit, I recognise that Charles will not be so feverishly loved as his mother and there will be louder calls…but, I still think we (as a country) tend to hold on to the past and nostalgia with a firm grip. Just look at Brexit and how the gammons keep talking about it like a war effort.

      I used to be pro royals, but I would be absolutely okay with waving them goodbye.

    • ABritGuest says:

      I think brits usually love stability and the status quo so I was shocked that Brexit happened. But that was also helped by some power players like press moguls. So as long as they want a monarchy& support it with propaganda etc it will remain. I’m sure the monarchy going would have wider implications for the peerage system & House of Lords etc so that’s why I think certain power players who want things like titles will want to keep the monarchy in place.

      The republican movement is practically non existent in the UK& and I think it’s because some secretly love the pomp etc as part of national identity. And people are too used to idea of a ruling class.

      I think the royal family will be less visible & less part of national life after the Queen dies but it’s here to stay.

      • Sofia says:

        Agreed. Especially with the part about the peerage. Even if people don’t fancy the monarchy too much, a lot of them want titles so that’s an incentive to them to keep the peerage around.

        Also agree on the pomp and circumstance part.

      • Dollycoa says:

        I think the monarchy will stay in England purely through apathy, but I do find that no one under 30 even gives a stuff about them. They barely know who’s who. And that’s not a bad thing. I live a bit of Royal gossip but when my 12 year old asks about them (because his friends watch The Crown, before that they didnt care) it is hard to justify their existence to him. I suspect once Charles is King he will streamline e extremely, just to get rid of Andrew frankly, and by the time William’s turn comes, I would hope no one is going to be doing the ridiculous flag waving and blocking ambulances outside hospitals where sick people are ( apart from some gawping tourists maybe) when they have a baby. There was a recent hushed up survey that found that donations to charities fell when they got a Royal patronage. If no one wants to see them they may just fade away anyway. The Monarchs role as Head of State is purely ceremonial, so could be done in an Irish President style capacity. I am more and more surprised that Australia, New Zealand and Canada dont jump ship. They are mature democracies. India did it over 70 years ago!

    • mynameispearl says:

      I think apathy is what works for them though, as long as people are like, whatever, theyll never be worked up enough to actually want rid of them.

      As an Irish person in NI I’d be voting for a Republic, I reckon Id be in a minority though.

      • Sofia says:

        That’s why I said it might be apathy that’s keeping them, but it’s keeping them.

        People may not personally like the royals but they also go largely unnoticed in our day to day lives so therefore don’t affect people as much therefore don’t do anything to campaign for a republic.

      • Lady D says:

        That may change after Brexit. I can see a lot of resentment because of the cost of keeping them after half the country have lost their jobs. When food prices sky rocket and most jobs/way of life disappear, the wealth of the RF will be noticed, and noticed with resentment.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      The thing with referendums in the UK is that they are NOT legally binding and as such the gov can ignore the results if they want to.

      It would take a HUUUGE scandal to topple the Monarchy, something bigger than Andrew and his predilections.

      • mynameispearl says:

        Well the rightwing media waged a 30 year negative campaign against the EU (most of it total rubbish), so when the referendum came up it narrowly squeaked a leave vote.

        If enough of the media hammered at them for long enough, chipped away at them all the time, it could be done. Itd need to be a concerted effort though and I couldnt see it. The Guardian are left of centre but are too fair to put out unwarranted criticism, so theyd only criticise when they had to, but it’s never going to be histrionic enough to sway people. The mirror are leftish wing, but a lot of working class people who read it probably support the monarchy so theyd need to be careful.

        Itd take the Express, the Sun, the Times, the Mail to collectively turn on them, all the time (like the anti Jeremy Corbyn campaign). Itd eventually rile people up enough to want them gone.

        Couldnt see them doing it though, as someone mentioned upthread they are all probably dying for a knighthood or some such nonsense.

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        @MyNameIsPearl Jeremy Corbyn effectively waged a war against himself. Let’s not re-beat that drum.

    • Mika says:

      Yeah, something like 14 different countries would have to change their constitutions so… Don’t hold your breath.

      • mynameispearl says:

        Jeremy was a disaster, but some stuff that they hammered him for was stuff they actively celebrate in other people.

        Case in point, remembrance Sunday at the Cenotaph. Jeremy wore an anorak one year, and it was a dark colour, I thought it was grand. The papers went to town on how disrespectful it was to the war dead, it was an absolute disgrace etc. The next year Boris turns up looking a state and actually laid the wreath upside down. The BBC actually subbed in archive footage from a previous year when he looked better and did it correctly. Some eagle eyes noticed and they had to apologise for their error. What error, they had to look for the footage and cut it into the coverage!

        So it’s not that I thought Jeremy was great, I just think that the media can forgive some and not others. Why is Boris allowed to be forgiven for the letterbox/piccannies/watermelon smiles racism?

        Sorry BoJo and the inexplicable favourable coverage he gets just boils my blood.

      • Dollycoa says:

        I wouldnt hold my breath! The Daily Mail are doing Prince Charles’ bidding with regardsctobThe Crown. Discrediting what came out of a dead woman’s mouth because its burst his pr bubble.

    • Tealie says:

      I agree I don’t think the monarchy will go untill the commonwealth and possibly union goes, which is down to Brexit and the next few years to see.

    • Redgrl says:

      Canadian here too – have often thought that once the Queen passes away it is time for Canada to sever ties with the monarchy. In terms of the impact on our political system – I leave that to the constitutional scholars but I don’t see the practical need for either the governor-general or the senate for that matter (which is a whole other debate). I also agree it is more apathy that keeps the current system as it is.

    • L4frimaire says:

      As an outsider, that is the dilemma. The monarchy seems to prop up a whole aristocratic and societal structure that doesn’t seem to exist any longer in other countries. Do they still have hereditary peers in Spain or Sweden? While countries like France and Austria have aristocrats without monarchs, and not sure if those titles are even recognized officially. Usually monarchies are deposed through major disrupters like wars or revolutions. Anyway there is an interesting article in the Atlantic about the wife of a peer who wants to change the law so that the peerage can’t only be inherited by male heirs, which would have impact on having more women in the House of Lords. That’s what is more likely to to shake up the system if it gains any traction. I don’t see the monarchy going anywhere, regardless of how much we side eye their petty behavior to certain family members and insularity. Throughout history they have had great, obscure, and indifferent monarchs but also a few lousy ones, power has waned and they’re still here. Not my preferred style of government but not my problem.

      • Mademoiselfe says:

        Nobility titles have no longer legal existence in France. They can be inherited, and sometimes come with land and old money.

  3. Becks1 says:

    I think there is a huge tendency to favor the status quo, especially if the status quo doesn’t really affect you on a daily basis. So I don’t see the monarchy going away in the next generation, unless some big news breaks about their finances or shady dealings or some other scandal – that could rock the boat a bit.

  4. Seraphina says:

    I hope they all get tossed out and they no longer can wield the power they have. That would certainly tie Ma Middleton’s knickers in a bunch I am sure.
    And Wills will not want to give up the power that comes with it – wait till he gets a sense of what it means when he is The Prince of Wales.

    • yinyang says:

      I’m with you!

    • Amy Too says:

      I can’t believe that they’re even letting the sentiment of, “yeah, we don’t even like being royals and having all you peasant watch our every move, vote us out, that’s fine,” get out there. How absolutely tone-deaf and ungracious of them. “We don’t even like doing this but if you guys want to keep giving us all your money, and worshiping us, and celebrating our lives, and feeling comforted by our presence, were not going to say no. We’ll just resent you for it and look down on you as gawping peasants who make our lives feel like living in a goldfish bowl.”

  5. Snuffles says:

    I tweeted yesterday that I thought any member of the royal family living off of taxpayer money should be subjected to an annual review to see if they are bringing any true value to the UK and the Commonwealth. An independent review by economists. Tourism, charities, British brands, etc. I’m sure it can be done. I follow the band BTS from Korea and they calculate their brand value (and that of other celebrities) monthly. They even put out a chart.

    Recently someone did a study that showed charities that had royal patrons rarely saw any financial benefit to having them. With some exceptions (Harry and Meghan). With some even going under.

    I think the results would be VERY interesting!

  6. Dee says:

    I can’t imagine anyone wanting a monarchy in the 21st century. The idea there’s anything special about the firstborn in this hereditary line is absurd. They are walking anachronisms.

    • Ann says:

      I think the whole “firstborn” thing is what bugs me the most about it. That, and the idea of a “divine right.” I’m American and I can’t relate to having a Monarchy, but it’s an entrenched British institution so if they are OK with it than it doesn’t matter to me. But the very notion that one sibling is more important than another because he/she came out first is just gross. I’ve seen watching The Crown (it’s the first Royal show I’ve ever really watched) the negative impact it can have on the younger kids, how it poisons family relationships, and it’s genuinely f***ed up. That said, I’m not sure what can be done about it. If it isn’t the first born, then how do you choose who it is? That could cause just as many problems.

      So maybe it is best to get rid of it. Or at least change it.

      • mynameispearl says:

        I think once you introduce an element of democracy to it it would dismantle altogether. So you can choose, but just out of this one family..
        In that case I’d be thinking, what, what if there are better families. Or why does ol Queeny get to choose her fave… it’d lead to debate and we’d all want a say (which would be fair).

      • L4frimaire says:

        The concept of giving it all to the first born is all about wealth preservation. Always has been, always will be. Traditionally, the second borns and others should make their own way in the world,or married off to other royalty somewhere, but they all seem to be stuck on the royal teat, while excoriating the Sussexes for doing just that. Sidebar but what exactly did they want from the Sussexes? If they did too much it was bad, if they did less it was bad.They were openly hostile to Meghan, constantly accused them of hypocrisy and taking from the taxpayer, called them attention seeking but watched their every move. Now are livid they left when they were wanting them gone. Anyway, Charles and William will be there on the throne, and one of those other Cambridge kids will end up getting cast as the foil to George in the next generation.

  7. Amy Bee says:

    The only person in the Royal Family who would be happy with the UK becoming a Republic is Harry. All the rest, including William, believe in the power of the monarchy and that it’s their divine right to be King/Queen. I hope when the Queen dies that people will question the need for a monarchy and that a referendum takes place. But it won’t happen under a Tory Government. The Tories are royalists and believe in maintaining the status quo.

    • Lemons says:

      They don’t care about been King/Queen. They care about the grift. How much can they grift from the UK taxpayer so that they don’t have to do any actual work or money management?

      I can see Charles wanting to be King, but William just wants to live comfortably without really having to care.

      Honestly, how many MAJOR issues that weren’t rooted in her own family’s scandal has the Queen had to face during her reign? It’s a relatively easy PR job if you consider how well they are being compensated.

  8. Sansblague says:

    As an American & British national living in UK, I am not indifferent the Royal Family. I might be if they didn’t receive any of my tax money but sadly that’s not the case. Among many other things, I’m opposed to the idea of a supposedly modern, inclusive, “democratic” country being represented by what is essentially a religious institution. I’m in favour of a more separate church and state, along the lines of France.

  9. Sarah says:

    As someone who would get to vote on this I would love to see them gone but right now we just don’t need to give more opportunities to sow division and distrust in this country, we’ve had enough of that. They’re a drain on our resources and pointless but it would not (yet anyway) be worth the effort to get rid of them.

    • Sofia says:

      Agreed. There’s no point in spending time, money and energy on having a referendum on something people just don’t care strongly enough. And as I said upthread, considering how the last one yet, I doubt people would be jumping up to vote for one about the monarchy.

  10. Emily says:

    If there is a referendum on the monarchy, I want it to happen a decade or so after the Queen passes. For whatever reason, the Brits adore Petty Betty.

  11. Pop says:

    Give it to Anne. I know she does not want it but she is the only one suited for the position.

  12. Lizzie says:

    As an American I see the rf as something unique and special about the UK. I think they could do loads better, need oversight and a reduction of taxpayer funding.

  13. SexyK says:

    The writing is on the wall. Didn’t one of their Tory Prime Minister called the U.K. ‘unimportant’ to the world? The way that Scotland, Jamaica, Barbados and even Northern Ireland are trying to break from the Commonwealth tells me that the monarchy will only existed for England. Once Elizabeth passes, I see Australia and Canada joining that list too.

    This is why there’s pressure to skip Charles and give it to incandescent William. Elizabeth is the glue that keeps it together. The sad thing is William is so owned by the media and Tory government, he is already in a weak position. That ‘power’ is not gonna turn out the way William thinks it will and that will actually weaken the monarchy. He will be their puppet for life. The monarchy will end in the 21st century.

    • Tiffany says:

      Hong Kong’s independence was the writing on the wall. That really was the beginning of the end and while it might not happen tomorrow, it is going to happen.

    • Dee Kay says:

      I remember hearing a psychic on TV saying that William would be the last King of England. This was in the 1980s. I never forgot that, and today I really believe that to be true. Not because an eighties psychic said so, but b/c of everything that is happening in UK and the (poor) decisions the RF is making now. They won’t sink the monarchy while QEII is alive but let’s say, 20 years after her passing, I can see the whole institution falling apart easily.

  14. Honora says:

    « But… after Liz passes on, there will be British politicians speaking openly about whether or not a hereditary monarchy needs to exist. « 
    Why then? If Liz has done well why let the monarchy go? And if she hasn’t, why is it only after She’s gone to rethink it ? Don’t get this at all

    • Snuffles says:

      A Brit would know better but I suspect that the Queen is the last connection to a time where the royal family was seen as truly crucial. I think if you go back to WWII, many Brits saw them as a tower of strength that saw them through. But times have changed drastically and it becomes harder to see the point of them now.

  15. Chaine says:

    The trappings of monarchy are ridiculous. Look at that pic of her and Charles perched on their gilded chairs adorned in shiny trinkets. It’s like a child’s idea of what it means to be important.

    • Josie Bean says:

      I agree. If I were them I would give up the “King” and “Queen” crowns, the ermine robes, that big golden horse drawn carriage, and the rest of that “Royalty” stuff – it is completely and utterly outdated and makes them look downright silly in my opinion. There was a place for it in Henry VIII’s day but not now.

  16. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    In the UK, if 50,000+ sign an online petition, the matter has to be heard in Parliament.
    I’m waiting for the moment Old Brenda turns her toes up so I can get a new petition going. By the time it’s passed, PWT and Buttons might even have retrained for new jobs… who am I kidding? They’ll always be welfare recipients.

  17. Ainsley7 says:

    A referendum on the monarchy isn’t going to happen because it would call into question all the hereditary peers in the House of Lords. The class system is just too ingrained in the government. They government has also been relying heavily on Royal diplomacy since Brexit in both Europe and the commonwealth. They seem to think it’s working. So, they won’t get rid of them anytime soon.

  18. Nic919 says:

    I think the commonwealth countries are in a different position and I will be curious to see how it goes for Barbados and possibly Jamaica. If they manage to break off then it won’t be hard for Australia or Canada to do the same. None of these countries have the same ties to the Queen as the English do. She’s not one of them.

  19. Dani says:

    As an American – what happens to them if the monarchy is no longer? Do they have to go get regular jobs like the rest of us?? Also…does the queen even really have an ACTUAL say in anything related to the government anymore?

    • Becks1 says:

      The royal family has so much money that the public doesn’t know about – so no, they would not have to get real jobs. Maybe some of the lesser royals, but Charles, William, George (depending on when it might be abolished) – nah. They might do something just to pretend to work, but they wont have to.

    • yinyang says:

      They estimate the monarchy’s worth to be in the Billions, so no they won’t have to.

    • anotherlily says:

      They would remain members of the aristocracy with hereditary titles and all their private wealth and landholdings.

  20. mlouise@hotmail.com says:

    I agree with you Chaine; we live in a time where ‘Hollywood’ and monarchy pretended importance (which only exists because they make too much money for what they actually contribute the society) is fading and fast. It would have been sound for the Queen to pass it on to her son a decade ago, that would have prevented much debates when she passes and not making him look like someone who waits for his mother’s passing to accomplish his destiny (weird concept in 2000s). Honestly, since people know they don’t bring actual value to charities, quite the opposite, what is the point? Only thing that made me think about the relevancy is when the Queen allegedly opposed Margareth Tatcher on Sount Africa position. This is what gave me pause, that only time she went against her own rules is the only time she showed actual value to the system.

  21. ce says:

    “He’s waiting and plotting and incandescent with rage” 😆

  22. RoyalBlue says:

    to abolish the monarchy the working class would have to rise up and revolt, and that’s not happening because they have been browbeaten into submission. the middle class are clamoring for acceptance in the upper classes and are too preoccupied to care. the upper class peers and aristocracy are wallowing in their importance and firmly entrenched in their positions. when scotland leaves it will bring an avalanche and others will follow. william will be the king of england and wales alone.

    • Thirtynine says:

      From what I’ve read, the independence movement is growing even in Wales, although nowhere near like Scotland. If Scotland and Ireland get away, I hope Wales will consider that a possibility that is open to them too.

  23. Amelie says:

    This post made me LOL because I discovered the satirical, heavily caricatured show The Windsors on Netflix a few days ago and an episode in the first season has Prince William holding a referendum over whether they should keep or abolish the monarchy. In this incredibly alternative universe William rejoices at being able to be a helicopter pilot and real estate agent, but then it goes to show how the country descends into chaos once the monarchy is abolished. The whole show is so ridiculous and very loosely inspired by the BRF but it’s so entertaining.
    It was clearly meant to make fun of Brexit since the first season aired in 2016 which is when the Brexit referendum occurred.

    But who knows what will happen when Charles becomes king! It would be great for George, Charlotte, and Louis to grow up away from the public eye.

  24. Candy says:

    I watched a debate on whether Canada should still have the monarchy or become independent of them. There was many good points to drop them but for the support side this one kooky British-Canadian lady argued that every one loves the monarchy and they draw huge crowds, the opposer than pointed out that it’s because essentially the queen is a celebrity and has no real purpose, the kooky lady argued back no we had a celebrity Meghan and nobody wanted her we chased her out, smh.

    The monarchy undermines the strength of the Commonwealth countries and the PM’s authority, and nevermind the fact they own big companies in Canada like Serco, these things should belong to Canadians! Not guests that don’t know jack about the country. I hope after the queen passes, we put on our big boy pants and do away with them, no wonder Americans don’t take us seriously.

  25. Keroppi says:

    One of the reasons that I enjoy following the royals is that it is history in the making. I have said before that I believe a lot will change after the Queen passes away. I also think that there have been several turning points in just the past year that will have lasting effects on the monarchy. Eventually, there will come a tipping point….

    • JanetDR says:

      When I was in middle school, I was really into biographies and eventually more particularly kings and queens. I think that’s why I still take such an interest (as an American) in the royal family.
      I really wish the Queen would step down (to spend more time with her family 😂) and give Charles his shot. He’s talked about streamlining the monarchy and I’m all for seeing something a bit more modern, less victorian.

  26. Alberto Delano XO says:

    My armchair geopolitical two-cents: First, I give Lizzie 10 years, with Charles ascending to the throne an octogenarian. Since he won’t abdicate, I give him a further 15-20 years in the throne. That will make Willy close to 70 on acenscion. That’s a lot of British generations living under washed up, elderly monarchs. Add on top of that that in the next decade, as British Millennials and Zoomers finally get off their asses and vote, on top of a continuous economic decline, the Tories are in for a major backlash. Republicanism is weak right now, but it grows exponentially, and future left wing governments will (justifiably) point the finger at the class system and royals. I don’t think the Monarchy will go down with Charles, but it will be against the ropes with Willie, who has a worse character. Nobody is going to remember golden boy Willy in 20 years.
    But there’s something else that needs to happen first: For Spain to become a Republic. The Spanish Crown is under a worse crisis right now, and Spain leans much more to the left (in general terms). If it happens there, then it’s going down in Britain.
    Ironically, I think the Nordic, Belgian and Dutch monarchies stand a much better chance precisely because their countries are leagues ahead more modern, more equalitarian and pretty much invented the welfare state.

    • Nyro says:

      All of this. As for goldenboy William, there are Gen Z kids making memes about being shocked over how hot he used to be. It’s 2020. There are millions of young British adults walking around who weren’t even alive when William was a heartthrob. They weren’t even alive when Diana died. These are adults with no memory of that. They aren’t gonna feel that sentimental pull towards him, even less so for George.

      I think the commonwealth will crumble after Petty Betty dies. William will reign over England alone. And he’ll be the last king if England.

  27. L4frimaire says:

    It’s really up to the citizens and government to decide this. The last referendum they had hasn’t exactly turned out neat and clean, and still has ramifications. To me, instead of prince . Charles deciding how to slim down, perhaps the government should define it more. Some MP, or columnist, can’t remember, basically wrote a while back that the Queen and maybe Charles should get a government salary for their roles, the rest can do whatever, get jobs, live off inheritance, and the taxpayers stop paying for every public thing the royals do. Anyway, this is up to the UK., ( and the press and next Cambridge Analytica).

    • Becks1 says:

      This is what I think is likely to happen* – a drastic slimming down of the monarch not just because Charles wants it, but because Parliament says so. Look at other European monarchies for guidance .

      *and I think when it happens, the Sussexes will look very smart (smarter than they already do.) I also think in 20 years people are going to wonder what the hell was the fuss about re: Sussexit.

    • Josie Bean says:

      I do hope Charles “slims down” the monarchy and brings it into the 21st century.

      I do not mind having my taxes being used for a reasonable “government salary” for the monarch and the first in line heir, but the rest of them need to get their own jobs. They need to get educated – properly educated. Why couldn’t some of them become doctors, scientists, mathematicians, accountants, attorneys. How about some of them going into the trades, plumbers, carpenters, builders, electricians – there is a desperate need for these trades in the UK.

  28. Margot says:

    Canadian here. We want out!

  29. Mia says:

    I grew up in 90s Hong Kong and saw the word “Royal” removed from buildings, clubs and businesses, when the British left. Many have the feeling is that the British “abandoned” Hong Kong to authoritarian mainland Chinese power. I’ve even seen the colonial Hong Kong flag waved at protests – which is truly bizarre considering the history of colonialism. Many Hong Kongers want to be self governing, autonomous – but this past year in 2020 China has tightened it’s grip, ousting all democrat lawmakers and arresting people who lay memorial flowers for fallen protestors. They’ve also been arresting people with certain slogans.

    China is now setting it’s sites on Taiwan, governed in part by the people who overthrew The Last Emperor of China (who became a gardener after the revolution). The current party kicked them out of China and they ran to Taiwan during the Cultural Revolution (Mao etc.)

    China is currently building an empire to rival the old days of England – but it will last longer due to the fact Chinese people have bureaucratic pride and a sense of collectivism utterly lacking in the west.

    I’m a dual citizen (Hong Kong + USA) so I’ll clarify for my own safety, my opinion is that I have no opinion. I also think America is a cesspool of racism and sexism so no, I’m not “indoctrinated by the west” – I think everywhere sucks and Meghan Markle makes me feel better about the world :(

  30. A says:

    The thing is that this issue is not something for the British to vote on alone. The Queen is head of state of a number of Commonwealth countries. If there is a referendum, then the referendum would have to be done in all of those countries too. And they would all unanimously have to vote to become a republic or whatever else, as they choose.

    Considering the absolute fuck cluster shit show the British made of the Brexit referendum, and give the shaky history of referendum based changes in my own country of Canada, there is no way I trust any of the existing political leadership with this issue right now. I would need to see some significant assurances and actual work being done to ensure that the voices of those impacted the most by this change will be heard. In Canada that is the First Nations people. And given how famously attentive both Canada and British have been throughout history to First Nations people, I’m not holding my fucking breath.

    Britain, IMO, would have a better time figuring out a written constitution, or some other way to better, more clearly define the role of the sovereign in their govt affairs, than they would by pursuing yet another fucking referendum on an issue that is too fucking complicated to be a yes or no question. They are as bad at this as they were at drawing borders.

  31. anotherlily says:

    The moment The Queen passes Charles becomes King. Within minutes he will be greeted by senior courtiers as’ Your Majesty’. He will address the nation by live broadcast, probably within hours. The Prime Minister will also address the nation. There is a long-standing procedure for what will happen over the following days. It will be a national event with people following every news broadcast. There will be an upsurge of national feeling and warmth towards King Charles 111 (unless he takes another name) and Queen Camilla.

  32. yinyang says:

    Yes it’s pleasant having royalty, but it’s pleasanter to feed kids and shelter the homeless.

  33. Mia says:

    Is it cruel or me to wish that process would start while she is still alive. I don’t want the queen or the people who worship her, thinking that she is inherently better than Charles either. What she had on her side more than anything is a willingness of those wanting to continue the charade of monarchy and British exceptionally well past the sell by date. Elizabeth and Phillip get more respect than they deserve. They need to know that because while people take glee in everything being ripped from Charles, they need to know that are not exempt from the disdain. Too many people think she is just harmless old lady of the family and nation. I do not buy it at all.