Hilary Mantel predicts that the British monarchy will be done in two generations

HILARY MANTEL

Booker-Prize-winning author Hilary Mantel doesn’t chime in constantly about the British monarchy, but whenever she does say something, it’s always a huge headline and a barn-burner. In 2013, her comments about the Duchess of Cambridge – Mantel called Kate little more than a varnished doll built by a committee – ended up being a huge international story and even the prime minister commented. Back in May, Mantel criticized the fact that the Queen was paraded about at her husband’s funeral, said that the Queen should have abdicated long ago, and that we are currently witnessing the last gasp of the British monarchy. She said: “I think it’s the endgame. I don’t know how much longer the institution will go on. I’m not sure if it will outlast William. So I think it will be their last big era.” Well, Mantel has a new interview and wow, she really doesn’t give a f–k. I love her.

Hilary Mantel said she doesn’t think Prince George will ever sit on the throne in England. She has been fully immersed in writing about the Tudors in her Wolf Hall trilogy series but she is no fan of the monarchy. The historical fiction novelist, 69, claimed her “back of the envelope” guess is the royal family could be gone in two generations.

She told The Times: “I think it’s a fair prediction, but let’s say I wouldn’t put money on it. It’s hard to understand the thinking behind the monarchy in the modern world when people are just seen as celebrities.”

Of the Queen and Prince Charles, she said: “I think they do it as well as anyone possibly could, take it as seriously as anyone could.”

Unable to resist, she weighed in on the fallout from Meghan and Prince Harry quitting their royal duties to lead a new life across the pond. She added: “I’ve tried to keep out of the Meghan thing because I think it’s far too soon to have an opinion. And anyway, all of us commentators are part of the problem. I’d like us all to say less. And let them have a chance to find some resolution.”

[From The Evening Standard]

Much like every other Mantel interview, her comments are now being disseminated as “Mantel attacks the royal family!” In this case, they’re saying she’s attacking a child, Prince George, by theorizing that he’ll never be king. Which is not an attack. None of this is an attack. This is a historian and author theorizing that the British monarchy cannot sustain itself as-is, and that in two generations, no one will actually give a sh-t. And I hope she’s right.

European Football Championship - England - Germany

Royal Portrait

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Kensington Palace.

Related stories

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

201 Responses to “Hilary Mantel predicts that the British monarchy will be done in two generations”

  1. Oliphant says:

    Absolutely love this woman, superb writer, really insightful, and I really feel she’s right too, it’ll all collapse with william.

    • Amy T says:

      Everything you said. I’m almost finished with “The Mirror and the Light,” (the last of the Thomas Cromwell trilogy) and will probably turn around and reread it again….she is a divine writer.

      • Oliphant says:

        Arrrgh I still have it to read, I almost don’t want to start as that’ll be the end of Cromwell and I love the way she writes him! But like you, I guess I can just go back and re-read them all :)

        I’m off to see the stage version of mirror and the light in a few weeks in London which she has co-written I think. MORE CROMWELL :)

      • Becks1 says:

        @Oliphant – that’s me exactly. I’m actually about halfway through Mirror, but I’ve stopped there for months bc I don’t want to read the end, lol.

      • Cee says:

        I’ve had the book since it came out and it’s sitting in my bookshelves because I just can’t bring myself for it to end LOL

      • Mac says:

        The Cromwell series is phenomenal, but A Place of Greater Safety is my favorite Mantel novel.

    • Myra says:

      She’s really good at assessing people’s characters so maybe she can accurately predict the future too.

    • Amy T says:

      You have to report back on that production! I can’t even fathom how one would adapt that for the stage. So many threads and choices!

      • Oliphant says:

        Will do! I’m so excited, and yes I have no idea how they’re gonna cram it into 2-3 hours! Did you see the wolf hall series? They did so wel with that considering it covered 2 books but I did wish they’d done 2 seasons instead of one. LOL my husband hates Cromwell, he jokes he’s jealous of him due to how much I went on about him whilst reading the books- but I think he is actually a bit jelly :)

        @becks1 i know it’s like saying goodbye to a friend!

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      Considering how Charles is gutting the working line, and TOBB and his wife try and do as little as possible (and what they do is so ineffectual, up to and including their patronages closing due to lack of attention/fundraising), I just hope George is allowed to learn/develop a skill or passion for something other than the things his father loves (being a workshy, lazy cheat).

      • Mac says:

        I get the sense that the hard-core royalists are primarily people whose parents lived through WWII. If that is the case, those interested in maintaining the BRF are a dying generation. Younger generations are much more diverse and much more committed to equality. No matter how much the BRF reaches out to younger generations, supporting the pinnacle of the British class system does not align with their values.

    • clomo says:

      William will fail on his biggest task, that’s my bet. Shame Charlotte wasn’t born first, getting some female energy by that time my be it’s only hope. The thought of say 40 years with King William his royal highness is not a sunny one.

      • Fran says:

        @Oliphant – I saw the stage play for Wolf Hall and Bring Up The Bodies, it was bloody brilliant. I didn’t notice that The Mirror and The Light was already headed for the stage and just did some research. Nathaniel Parker is back as Henry VIII, as is Ben Miles as Thomas Cromwell, omg. I wish I could go to London to see this but times being what they are… Let’s hope they’ll record it like the National Theatre does for many of its productions. Enjoy the performance!

  2. Nievie says:

    There is a reason why the normal retirement age in the UK is 65. Queen should have abdicated years ago. Also there is no royal family in france and Versailles still looks a lovely as ever to visit. We brits will do just fine without them.

    • Simone says:

      Same with the royal palace Reggia di Caserta in Italy. There’s no royal family anymore, but Pizza Margherita is still a hit around the world (named for Queen Margherita in 1889.)

    • Simone says:

      Same with the royal palace Reggia di Caserta in Italy. There’s no royal family anymore, but Pizza Margherita is still a hit around the world (named for Queen Margherita in 1889.)

    • janinedm says:

      From this side of the Atlantic, it seems like the monarchy would be very difficult to get rid of. Not because of the specious arguments about tourism and benefit to the Commonwealth, but because so many of your most powerful businessmen and politicians belong to the aristocracy. The loss of the monarchy would destabilize their spot in the hierarchy. The royals are one thing, but there’s a bunch of people who have the lion’s share of power who benefit from the whole social pyramid scheme. I don’t see them letting go without a fight.

      • Jan says:

        What benefits do the Commonwealth get from Britain?
        What about Britain returning all the stolen property to Africa and return the money for sugarcane from the Caribbean.

      • janinedm says:

        That’s a whole other kettle of fish and a good question. I’m just saying that the various lords and ladies etc. will likely fight hard for the monarchy because wealth and power aren’t enough. They need titles too.

      • Amy Too says:

        Do they HAVE TO get rid of the aristocracy though? I’m assuming that they would have to do something that “grandfathers” in laws and treaties that have been implemented by a monarch over the past 1000 years, otherwise basically of all the UK’s laws and treaties will suddenly be obsolete, so can’t they grandfather in titles too? If you have them now, you’re allowed to keep them and pass them on until they naturally die out?

      • janinedm says:

        I’m no expert, it just seems like that’s been what’s propped the monarchy up this long. And you can see some of this in the whole Sussex mess they’ve made. I’m not going to lay the entire situation at the courtiers’ feet, but a lot of what we’ve seen are courtiers who are VERY invested in the way things have been. Let me just say here that I’m not a monarchist.

      • Desdemona says:

        Portugal hasn’t had monarchy since 1910 but we do have a Duke. If there was a monarchy comeback (never going to happen) he’d be the king. He’s a normal man with a job as a consultant for companies and also farming and dedicates his time to charity and the protection of the environment.
        No harm, we barely hear from him….

  3. Seraphina says:

    We can only hope she is correct. I am just disappointed it will take that long.

  4. Simone says:

    Is anyone on here interested in astrology? If so, Penny Thornton doesn’t have hopeful things to say about the clusterf@ck that is Andrew & Charles right now & the chances of Charles taking the throne. Lol. Fancy bringing it all down with your own arrogance & corruption.

    • Moderatelywealthy says:

      Any link to share on this?

    • Nick G says:

      Wow @ Simone thanks for the link. That was extremely interesting.

    • Emma says:

      That’s so interesting she wrote a book back in 1987 predicting Charles would not be crowned and even in 1951 astrologers were concerned about weaknesses in his chart.

      Random note. My Latin is not great but shouldn’t it be Annus Incommodus???

      • Simone says:

        @Emma I don’t speak latin but I’m with you – she meant annus incommodus. Otherwise Annus Incommodi means inconvenient year, which seems a bit of an understatement.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ Simonek I love astrology and all of the powers to be of dreams interpretation and crystals, which I have an enormous collection of as well. I often take some crystals and place them on my chakra’s as well!!

      Thank you so much for the link too!!

  5. equality says:

    Attacking George? With the way he looks so sad and stressed when he’s trotted out publicly, I would think that would be a relief for George.

    • Anners says:

      I thought if anything it was an attack on George’s father – like George will never inherit the throne because his father ruined the monarchy.

      But honestly, I don’t even think it’s an attack on anyone, just a prediction that the monarchy can’t sustain itself. Which is evident. They all just keep shooting themselves in the foot. Eventually someone will aim a little higher and that will be that.

      • AnneSurely says:

        Yeah. This for sure was a slight at William. A friend’s mother ran in Diana’s sisters’ social circle back in the day and she has always said that the monarchy was gasping in the late 70s and early 80s until Diana came along and actually dove into charitable work that had lasting, global impact. She gave them another 30 years’ grace and Charles and his kids squandered it. Charles with his Camilla nonsense, William by marrying a shallow party girl and his 2 decade avoidance of actual responsibility, and, this is going to be controversial, Harry and his decade+ of partying. Both of Diana’s sons have gotten miles of indulgence bc of her death. I’m not saying they didn’t deserve sympathy and care, but most people who lost their parents in violent ways wouldn’t be extended grace for nearly a quarter of a century to party and avoid working. And then there are the women they chose. Kate is a tacky, shallow social climber who will never amount to anything but a sentient fascinator, and I like Meghan, alot, but she’s still an actress dabbling in charitable endeavors. If William had married someone serious, Meghan would not be a big deal. She (and frankly an actual barbie doll would) benefits from the comparison to Kate. Folks forget how Diana single-handedly turned the tide of public opinion in support of patients with HIV/AIDS. Heads of state respected her as a diplomat. 5 question surveys and sporadic gala attending are actual jokes, but benefit cookbooks and animal charity visits aren’t exactly global land mine clearing initiatives either. And we can have the discussion about the palace limiting Meghan, but it’s not like Diana had the palace’s support for her controversial initiatives either, they just knew that putting themselves in a position to oppose her would be a PR nightmare that they would lose spectacularly. I wouldn’t be surprised if Charles spent the end part of his regency closing down the monarchy so that he could be the final king of England and divest himself from William’s leverage. The positive PR he would get from transforming England into a republic would absolve anything he had done before.

      • Jan says:

        Well thank goodness for actresses that dabble in charity work as oppose society girls that dabble in charity work.

      • BabsORIG says:

        @AnneSurely, why you acting like acting as a job is a scourge? And honestly, I get really tired of “I love Meghan but…” just own your prejudice and speak with all your chest. And for the 1000th time, please, it has never been and still is not Harry’s job to save the monarchy. He was born a spare and as long as his older brother lived, whether he worked his hands to the bone or he just partied and did drugs for the rest of his life would bear no relevance to the succession of the monarchy. Charles and William are responsible to see that their legacy succeeds, its not up to Harry to make that happen for them. The rest of what you wrote is just racist dogwhistles wrapped in criticism for Charles and William and tied up neatly with a Diana praising ribbon.🙄.

      • Amy Too says:

        Anne surely, I don’t agree with you on Meghan. I think a lot of the work she did was very impactful for raising money, attention, and actual stuff (like clothing for SmartWorks) for the patronages she was given. She didn’t have a lot of charities, but the ones she had she really worked for. And I’m sure she would have continued to accumulate more if she had stayed. We have to remember that she was only there for a couple of years, one of which she pregnant, nursing, or on maternity leave for. She also went on a few international tours. They were ramping up their work, or trying to, as evidenced by the type of work they’re getting into now, but they were continually thwarted when it came to money, resources, staff, and what they were “allowed” to do. I think, in the same way that Diana changed the conversation around AIDS patients, Meghan has definitely fueled a world wide conversation on institutional racism, the harm that trash tabloids and media can do, misogyny, mental health, and how all of those things intersect with the British monarchy. Meghan has worked for only 3 years as a Duchess, half of that not even within the family anymore. Diana was a Princess for 16 or so years, so I don’t think it’s a terribly fair comparison. I think a comparison of Kate to Diana would be more apt, as they’re closer in terms of years as a Princess and status in the family as both being future Queen consorts. I’m also not sure why being an actress who dabbles in charity work is somehow not the best choice? What would have been better? A Princess from a foreign court? Someone who does charity work full time? A UN peacekeeper? I think actress who does charity work and studied foreign policy in university is kind of great. So much of monarchy is pageantry. And then the charity work. She was comfortable doing both.

        BUT I have also wondered on here about Charles spending his relatively short reign to shut the whole thing down and transition Britain into a republic. I’ve said the same things about how it would cement his position in history and make people look back fondly on him, and about how it would be a great way to stick it to William. I would love to see it.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        As far as I recall Diana didn’t involve herself in the cause of the removal of landmines until AFTER she left the BRF! And she received a lot of criticism for that choice.

        I like both Harry and Meghan – but the very fact that they left the BRF is very damaging to the monarchy because it really put a spotlight on what goes on behind the scenes + and so did their interview. I don’t blame them at all – it is clear that they were pushed out and that the rest of the family and senior staff made their situation beyond toxic. But objectively Sussexit did expose cracks in the foundation that was already there (and were made worse by the petty jealousies and racism of the BRF) – but now those cracks are on full view to the world. Not to mention how they bring to mind the way Diana was mistreated by the Charles and the BRF (and her interview was extremely damaging to them as well as was heir death and the bumbling way QEII handled that death).

        I find the BRF so fascinating because they are so dysfunctional and messy and how their familial dysfunction + the corruption that often can be found within elite spheres has been slowly weakening the entire institution. The British monarchy are failing in a significant way because they don’t know how to be a family. They have three separate courts with separate comms offices, and they spend more time undermining each other than they do working together. Not to mention what junior members like Andrew and the Wessexes get up to. Waging a subtle familial war through the tabloid press is so fucking dumb! They are unable to present a united front because this entire family is composed by several damaged people who are insulated by extreme privilege and coddled by their various yes men. The Queen has always been a weak leader internally – and both Charles and William surround themselves with toadies.

      • AnneSurely says:

        @Jan, I think they’re the same. Honestly, we don’t have enough discussions about how governments should be providing the goods and services that many of these charities do. And that many of these charities are redundant or siphon funds from the groups who are actually doing the community work.. As someone who has both volunteered and worked for non profits, many of them truly just don’t need to exist. There was one in my home town that was just the recipient of $5m from MacKenzie Bezos and the non profit that was supposed to be dedicated to economically empowering women and children used the money as a down payment to buy itself a fancy building and rent out the out the other spaces to pay the mortgage. And poor decisions and irresponsible spending plus well-meaning white and/or wealthy people mean that we have community organizations that are fighting for scraps of funding and not necessarily doing work that is benefiting the people they are interested ding to help.

      • Sofia says:

        @Anne Surely: What a terrible comment about Meghan’s charity work. It might not be good enough for /you/ but I think the Hubb Ladies who are brown and Muslim who benefited from the “benefit cookbooks” are extremely grateful and don’t think Meghan is just an actress who dabbles in charity work. Not everything has to be /global/ to make an impact.

        Next time, instead of dismissing the very real people Meghan helped and made an impact on, just say you don’t like Meghan and she wasn’t good enough for you because she didn’t cure cancer instead of doing the “I like her but…”

      • AnneSurely says:

        @Babs, so, we have to stop going off the deep end with absolutes and overwrought declarations. Pointing out the failings of Charles, William, and Harry as adult men isn’t an attack on them. Pointing out that Meghan is a pleasant, lovely, wealthy woman with the kind of charity work on her plate that lovely, wealthy women usually have is not a racist attack on her. I think you might be projecting the rest of it.

      • AnneSurely says:

        @Sofia, I’m sure the work meant a lot to those women and I think it was a great project. I’m not denigrating Meghan’s work, my point with this statement is that Diana provided 30 years of steam to a flagging institution that was pretty well squandered by her ex husband and sons. Harry, in the last 5 years, has turned his life around, but I don’t even think that his and Meghan’s combined star power would be able to overcome rumbles about the expense and lack of necessity of the monarchy- even if they had been given free reign and support by the establishment and even if they had wished to take that on as a goal.

      • Sofia says:

        @AnneSurely: No you kinda did dismiss Meghan and her charity work. You shrugged the Hubb cookbook that made half a million pounds and changed the lives of several non white and non Christian women as a “benefit cookbook”. You dismissed Meghan specifically as “an actress who dabbles in charity work” when she hasn’t even acted in 4 years and counting now and used the word “dabbles” when people who’ve actually worked with her (and not internet posters like you and I) have said how committed she is to it. You dismissed her main passion of female empowerment and her other passions such as racial equality, vaccine equity, making sure everyone has the right to vote etc as “charity work on her plate that lovely, wealthy women usually have”.

        Again, charity work doesn’t need to be global to be good enough.

      • Eurydice says:

        @Annesurely – I won’t quibble at “actress that dabbles in charitable endeavors” because I (like Mantel) think it’s too early to judge how Meghan’s life will turn out. But comparing Meghan to Diana is apples and oranges, which you actually point to in your posts. You even go so far as to say that nothing Meghan could have done (however serious and impactful) would have helped the monarchy. So why make the comparison at all?

        And why, after rightly criticizing both William and Harry for their behavior in the past, imply that Meghan was a poor choice – one of “the women they married”? If nothing Meghan did would have been good enough, then who should Harry have married?

      • Sarah I says:

        What does the expression speak with your whole chest mean? I am unfamiliar with the expression.

      • Lady D says:

        Harry also spent the decade before Meghan serving in the Armed Forces where he obtained the rank of Major. He hasn’t been squandering anything for the past 15 years. You’re digging up ancient history to deride Harry with.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Along the lines of – to say something confidently without prevarication or pretense.

        In this case, no pussy footing around and couching it in false praise. re. AnneSurely needs to stop pretending they aren’t racist. Own their hate and racism towards Meghan, instead of pretending they are giving Meghan and her work a fair assessment that isn’t related to the shade of her skin and her ancestry.

      • equality says:

        @AnneSurely You are totally ignoring the fact that while you say Harry was simply partying, he was training and serving in the military and in combat. He was also creating Invictus, co-founding Sentebale and founding Endeavour. Not to mention coming up with things like Heads Up for Will and Kate to claim co-credit. You are also overlooking the fact that for all his partying he was extremely popular until he married Meghan. Explain that in your big theory.

      • equality says:

        @AnneSurely The majority of people do “dabble” in charity if they have to make their own way in the world. Not everybody has the fortune of being publicly supported to do charity work, and even with that, I would call what Will and Kate do “dabbling”.

      • AnneSurely says:

        @Eurydice, this isn’t at all about Meghan. For me, and what I was trying to get at is that Diana reinvigorated the RF’s goodwill and extended their relevancy for around 30 years and Charles, William, and Harry (given, to a lesser extent) have all frittered that away. Harry getting his act together, putting in some charity work, and marrying someone far nearer to Diana’s class than Kate has started to repair the messes he made with drugs, alcohol, naked Vegas parties, and racist costumes. But Charles and William both have just pissed away every chance they had at keeping the monarchy as globally popular as it was when Diana was around.

      • AnneSurely says:

        @Equality, I would call what they do dabbling too. And I’m not saying it’s bad- all non profits need volunteers, check writers, and influential board members, they all play their part. And my whole comment really had nothing to do with Meghan and Kate as people, more about what their selection as royal spouses indicates about their husbands.

      • AnneSurely says:

        @Sofia, it’s literally a benefit cookbook. And you’re correct, in fact, most charity work will not be global in its scope bc it takes place at the community level. Meghan takes on projects very similar to what my friends and I all take on in our charitable lives, with the same kind of success. Most American women in Megan’s and my age range have been raised to participate in the community this way. My original comment had nothing to do with Meghan. I like her. I think she’s bright and dedicated. My original comment was about Diana’s work and personal extending the RF’s goodwill by another 30 years and William, Charles, and Harry, to a lesser extent, not really capitalizing on it ***from a PR standpoint***. Charles might be doing amazing work with conservation but it is so far overshadowed by his Camilla crap, William’s Normal Bill routine has eliminated any kind of presence he might have among global leaders, and Harry making the news for partying for 10 + years did him no favors. Im agreeing with Hillary Mantel when she says that the monarchy is going to Peter out if Charles doesn’t end it on his own terms first.

      • equality says:

        @Anne Surely Harry making the news for partying being your emphasis makes it seem like you spend too much time reading tabloids. If you read serious news you would have seen the emphasis on his serious endeavours and wouldn’t be hung up on the partying.

      • Debbie says:

        I don’t even understand the point of that comparison: Diana “provided 30 years of steam” while Meghan is merely “an actress who dabbles in charity work.” Wow. If I understand your point, this “steam” you speak of was first manifested by ACCEPTANCE of Diana by people who looked like her, to put it simply. So they didn’t mock her for the way she tilted her head or during her pregnancy. She was, therefore, allowed to work & bring attn to her causes. The other, more enduring part, of the “steam” you mention, was dying young and unexpectedly and being embraced by – get this, people who look like her.

        As to Meghan, there’s absolutely NOTHING WRONG w/ being an actress and earning a living (like an adult); rather than having it all handed to one w/o contributing anything to society. Secondly, that verb “dabbles”… yeah, you meant to diminish her efforts and charity work because that’s not usually the way one describes charity efforts. You went out of your way, Ms. I Love Meghan But. By the way, you don’t have to like her, but the lady does impactful work. Whether the Brits appreciated it or not, that’s their hard luck. Although the media focus on Meghan may fluctuate over the years, It appears that she will be unforgettable (even judging by the BM). It’s just a pity that the English/Brexiters have chosen to stand in opposition to her instead of embracing her because their family doesn’t reflect hers.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        Meghan was a global ambassador for World Vision amongst other charitable endeavors before she was a royal girlfriend. She really was never just a lovely wealthy woman who dabbled in charity work. smh
        https://www.worldvision.ca/stories/gender-equality/meghan-markle-humanitarian

        Princess Diana didn’t have global landmine clearing initiatives. Charles & Diana divorced in Aug.1996-like ArtHistorian mentioned along with also being criticized-some UK lawmakers called her a loose canon. Her visits to Angola(Jan.1997) & Bosnia(early August.1997) brought awareness with her star power to initiatives already in place. The Halo Trust was founded in 1988 had started clearing land mines in 1994 before Diana came across them in Angola in ’97. In 1991 there were 6 NGO’s that began organizing a campaign for landmine clearing. Early 1996 the first draft of The Ottawa Convention/Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty was drawn up. It was notably signed December 1997 (minus some missing signatures) after Diana died end of Aug.1997. The images of Diana shaking the man’s hand at the April 1987 opening of the AIDS/HIV unit at the Middlesex Hospital, hugging the little boy at the Harlem hospital in Feb.1989 & other advocacy did really help people be more empathetic & remove some of the stigma surrounding AIDS. The first global celebrity to speak out in support of AIDS/HIV research and understanding was Elizabeth Taylor. She was a very outspoken headline making advocate. In September 1985 she joined with doctors and scientists to form AMFAR. IMO, Diana hugging the little boy helped Reagan to finally acknowledge/say something about the AIDS crisis after Elizabeth Taylor kept making remarks about his silence. Founded in 1991, the Elizabeth Taylor Aids Foundation, is still serving people today.

        Diana was fabulous at drawing attention to causes and demonstrating compassion to groups that might otherwise go unnoticed. It was probably the only benefit of being the most photographed woman of her time.

    • Tigerlily says:

      I always feel sorry for George. Especially the outfits they put him in. For that group photo it looks like he has a girls blouse on with those horrid plaid pants. Considering the emphasis his parents put on ‘normal’, he never looks like a normal little boy.

      • BlueToile says:

        So true. The outfit he is wearing in that photo with the Queen and her three heirs is…unfortunate. Plaid pants? And the shirt looks like a blouse with that weird trim. I rarely see him as a happy kid.

      • jwoolman says:

        Oh, how awful. Having him wear a shirt that people in some quarters think is only for girls. Fate worse than death, to look anything like a girl. /s

        Actually, it’s just an older style of formal clothing for children. Probably still popular enough amongst the rich folk in his area of the world. Not everybody wears jeans and a t-shirt all the time.

        Doubt very much that George is bothered by the clothes. He more likely is uncomfortable with the camera (I hated having my picture taken myself) and/or having to stand still and quiet with the adults or just not being able to go play with his brother and sister or cousins or friends.

      • notasugarhere says:

        They deliberately dress their children in antiquated clothing, to promote the idea their children are too special for ‘normal’ clothes.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Equality, ITA, the histrionics from some people are ridiculous. Mantel wasn’t “attacking” anyone, least of all George. In fact I hope she’s right, for George’s sake. It would be the best thing to happen to that poor kid.

    • The Recluse says:

      If he and his siblings are lucky, truly lucky, they will be free to live private lives, although that will depend on whether they make the most of the educations being afforded to them.
      William will likely be the last king and it will happen pretty fast I suspect, based on all this foolishness going on now.

  6. Oh_Hey says:

    They’re all mad but no lies detected. Why would a modern, democratic country need a monarchy? You could throw them all out of those fancy castles and turn them into museums tomorrow and make money rather then spending it on workshy losers and grabby handed weirdos that “don’t sweat”.

    • Cj says:

      Don’t even need to make em all museums! How much would Kim K and co pay to book Buckingham palace for a week and do a series of royals instagrams?

      It could probably fund all the national trust restoration work of historic sites across the U.K. for a year.

      • Nyro says:

        I’m not even a Kardashian fan but I’d love to see this. It would actually be genius project and a real comment on the absurdity of royalty. The biggest reality stars in the world mocking the demise of the longest running reality show in world history.

    • OriginalLala says:

      They should take many of these sites and turn them into affordable housing – who wouldnt want to live in an apt/condo that is part of a castle?

      • ThEHufflepuffLizLemon says:

        They’ll do one of those splits where it’s half affordable housing, half luxury condos to get the proper approvals and permits, but the affordable housing side will have to come in the servants entrance and won’t have access to all the fancier amenities…so basically, it’ll be just like it is now.

      • goofpuff says:

        The castles are super expensive to maintain though so it would definitely not be affordable. The maintenance fee alone would be staggering but the wealthy could definitely afford castle apartments.

      • Amy Too says:

        Part palace/royal history museum, part art gallery, part reception space for rent, part housing, part vacation rentals, and part commercial rental space for things like restaurants, cafes, jewelry stores, boutiques, hat and fascinator shops. These places are HUGE. No one ever gets to see the entirety of Versailles, for example, when they do that tour, and some of the rooms are just too big to turn into housing, so split it up and make it one huge multi-use space. How cool would it be to live in one of the newly renovated, semi-affordable attic studio apartments, go downstairs to the cafe in the morning, walk around the gardens, come back to do the castle art tour, then head into a restaurant for lunch, do some shopping in all the stores, then go to the other part of the gardens where they’re hosting a live music festival, before finishing the night at your wealthier friend’s non-affordable housing apartment for drinks, before going downstairs to the built in jazz club in the basement?

      • JT says:

        Harry spent a decade in the army and did two tours of Afghanistan. That is hardly f*cking off partying for 10 years, like William or Kate has done. Harry was also doing more royal engagements and tours than William, who it still technically a part time royal in terms of workload. What has William, the actual future king, done in 10 years?

      • Lorelei says:

        @JT, William has done jack sh!t, especially compared to his younger brother, and I can’t understand why he isn’t humiliated by this fact. I get that he’s lazy, but for god’s sake.

    • The Recluse says:

      Buckingham and Windsor would make excellent history and art museums. That family has so much material and historical wealth. The rest of their properties (ahem Balmoral) could be sold off. The side buildings to those two big ones could be used for administrative work or rentals.

  7. India says:

    This family is so rotten. Bully Boy is no better. He has plenty of skeletons in his closet which will come out. They all should go.

  8. Becks1 says:

    If the monarchy is so fragile that an author/historian speculating on its future is considered “an attack”….well then, I guess that says it all, doesn’t it?

    • Christine says:

      It sure does.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Becks it reminds me of how they shriek about one of their events — attended by a senior royal, no less — being “overshadowed” by an Instagram post about Meghan.

      How do they not see that the problem here is not Meghan, but the fact that she draws more attention than all of the rest of them because they’re so goddamn dull?? I guess that even if they do realize it, it’s easier to blame Meghan than to actually focus on fixing the problem. Lol if they truly thought the “Magnificent Seven” was going to catch on.

  9. SomeChick says:

    hoping I live long enough to watch it crumble!
    little George and the other kids have no idea what they’re in for.

  10. Alexandria says:

    Nah. I believe the men in grey will keep it alive even if someone abdicates. That’s the point of a hereditary system. There’s always someone.

    The only way monarchy goes is if the people and government demands it. That needs a strong revolution and I don’t see it happening anytime soon if white privilege and protection are still preserved.

    • LaraW” says:

      I don’t think they necessarily need a revolution: the position of the RF is precarious enough that a series of hard hitting scandals in a short period of time could bring them down.

      A lot of people said that generally the UK is apathetic, but if shady dealings of the RF are in the media long enough people will talk and start caring more. Some of the requisite conditions are already there: economic downturn and hardship. A food shortage in the UK while Kate buys another thousand £ coatdress? Possible Scottish referendum for independence? Charles gathering personal wealth for himself through corrupt pay-for-play schemes? And of course the albatross around the RF’s neck: Andrew.

      There’s a lot of stuff out that has potential to explode. We know the press is under a gag order with respect to William, and a lot of people are just waiting for Elizabeth to die before the gloves come off. We know William is possibly mentally unfit for the role as monarch. We know that no one has been able to stand up to William, and I don’t think the men in grey will be any different. William may be perfectly happy (or indifferent) to running the monarchy into the ground. He’s not politically savvy or discreet like his father (see: meeting with Gordon Brown), he’s already shown a great capacity to piss off world leaders and allies in a short amount of time (see: Wimbledon and the Euros). They didn’t think he was fit enough to show his face at the G7 this year.

      Also things have long been speculated with respect to possible ties with Russia— that is something they can’t predict because Russia will release information when it suits them. The social media engineering that they successfully pulled off to manipulate people into voting for Trump, for voting for Brexit. Destabilizing the UK further by plunging the country into a constitutional crisis seems like something out of their playbook.

      • LaraW” says:

        Something that’s absolutely necessary for a monarchy to continue is for the monarch to CARE about its continued existence. I don’t think William cares. In fact, I think he would take a perverse sort of pleasure to being the Last King of England. It means that he had something that no one else will ever have again. I do not put it past William to be jealous of his own son and petty enough to “punish” George by denying him the crown.

        In terms of timing, William will probably be crowned king in his last forties/early fifties AT THE EARLIEST. That’s ten years, which by then George will be around 18, better looking than his father, media will focus on him, etc. Can anyone see that going well? Charles is jealous of his own sons, but he cares enough about the monarchy to keep his grumblings (sort of) private. William has no such sense of discretion. I would not put it past William to brief against his own son.

        The Windsor dysfunction will live on— but it will be magnified because William cannot control his temper, jealousy, and pathological need to be the center of adoration.

      • Amy Too says:

        When every single member of the royal family that’s left seems irredeemable and they each have their own horrific scandal (and really horrific like rape, and money laundering, and cash for access to shady Russians, and shielding a rapist for not only consequences but even the embarrassment of being photographed, and racist talk about an infant, and making up angry black lady stories that run in the media for years) and the only good members of the royal family who brought joy to people and actually did good works are either dead or kicked out, that’s going to matter to people. When it was maybe just Charles who was a cheating jerk to Diana, but the Queen was still well liked, and Anne was still there, and Andrew hadn’t been exposed yet, and William was still young and attractive, and Kate was new, and Harry was out there having fun, there was hope. But as the years go on, they’ve been fighting each other more fiercely and publicly, exposing all of their various scandals and secrets, all while projecting an air of entitlement and complete disregard for anything having to do with honor or integrity, and a fairly obvious disdain for A) the public they’re supposed to be caring for/about and B) their own higher ups in the family whom they are supposed to be supporting and revering bc those higher ups are chosen by God. Why are we supposed to buy into the monarchy when they don’t? It’s clear that William doesn’t think Charles is anything special even though Charles is going to be the next King. Because he’s not. And we know it. It’s clear that Harry doesn’t find William to be some wonderful person that he would like to support even though William is also chosen by god to be King. Because he’s not. And we know it. They’re even starting to go after the actual Queen now, calling out her misguided protection of Andrew, her weakness when it comes to making any kind of decision, her support of Harry and Meghan and baby Lilibet. If they don’t respect the current monarch, or the next monarch, or the monarch after that, then why should the people? Every single one of them that’s left and anywhere near the seat of power are nasty people. There’s nothing redeeming to look forward to.

      • Dilettante says:

        Your comments re Russia I’m totally in agreement with.

    • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

      @Alexandria If you go BTL on the Heil (urgh, need shower, urgh) you’ll see how many people (thousands) are decrying the Queen, loathing Charles, calling for the monarchy to fall over PaedoAndy – and even more are calling for a republic. There are also many comments along the lines of ‘suppose Kate is going to drag the kids out to deflect’ and ‘where’s the pictures of Kate doing something with tennis’. Andy is the straw that broke the camel’s back. And this bunch can’t fall soon enough for my liking. Shielding a rapist using taxpayer money, indeed.

    • The Hench says:

      I think the media are the key to the tipping point. Once/if they realise that that the public mood has turned and they can get more clicks and make more money from tearing the RF down instead of sycophantically propping them up, then all the skeletons will come tumbling out. That in turn will fuel public anger which will create a groundswell of anti-monarchist opinion which will create a bigger call for more negative stories and that then will put pressure on the Government. The RF know that – they saw how quickly public opinion could turn on even the Queen when Diana died – remember that “Show Us You Care” headline demand when the BH flag wasn’t flown at half mast and the RF stayed at Balmoral?

      I think this is one of the reasons that the RF are afraid of Harry’s honesty and are as panicky/vicious in their attacks. They have so much shady sh*t to hide that if he keeps pulling back the curtain it will be the beginning of the end.

      • Alexandria says:

        Love all the takes. And I’m with you, the media needs to turn on this family to start the ball rolling. Some of them have jobs because of this family. If the scandals prove more profitable, the BRF is toast.

      • Debbie says:

        I agree w/ your take on what it would take to abolish that tribe, although I don’t know much about them. I only started paying attention when Harry married Meghan. However, I think if the RF started seeing commonwealth countries leaving, and backing away from them, I think that would get their attn, and signal that they were getting smaller, and their values were no longer tolerable.

    • Harper says:

      Wait until they see Charles’ face on their money, or William”s, when they were used to seeing the Queen. That will start them thinking. Or when they have to stand and sing God Save the King to tampon Charlie. It’ll be very weird. The Queen is a historic figure from another century–Chuck and Camilla are very recent objects of public ridicule. I think it’ll be a problem summoning up reverence for those two. No wonder they are trying so hard to keep the same type of tabloid ridicule and scandal being directed at TOB.

    • Demi says:

      There’s a video on YouTube called” 5 European Monarchies Most Likely to be Abolished”. The woman saying the Spanish is most likely to fall sooner than the others..I think that will happen and that would be like a model on how the British one will be abolished Corruption scandals in a time when the country is facing hardship that will set the public off. Down in the future, the British economy will get worse because of Brexit many shady dealings of Charles were brought to light already and by then the dirt the tabloids have on William will be exposed and criticized too.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        The Spanish monarchy is incredibly fragile for a number of reasons. First and foremost because it is a restored monarchy that still exists within the living memory of people who have lived without a monarchy. Secondly, the short-lived Second Republic abolished the monarchy after the King went into exile. So you can argue that the Spanish monarchy as the first monarchy that was abolished by democratic means – but that is overshadowed by the ensuing Spanish Civil War and the ensuing Fascist tyranny. King Juan Carlos was in a sense Franco’s chosen heir but he chose to help reestablish the democracy and he earned goodwill that he later pissed away through his rank corruption. However, from what I’ve read, the reestablishment of the monarchy in Spain is seen as a repudiation of its initial democratic abolishment. Then we have the latest scandals by several members of the SPR. King Juan Carlos was forced to abdicate, the princess Christina was tried in the court of law for corruption and her husband went to jail!

        In short, I wouldn’t bet on King Felipe’s heir ascending to the Spanish throne.

  11. A says:

    I think this is actually a very thoughtful statement. The monarchy is supposed to be about repressing the uk and it’s many charitable endeavors people have an affection for the current queen because she’s been there for most of there entire life starting in her late 20s. Charles and William won’t have as much good will and certainly as much time to build it up as she did. William barely works as it is, and while Charles certainly mastered acting like a king he can’t seem to get through one decade without controversy! I think Charles will get through his rein losing support slowly followed by William who could very well be the last!

    • Amy Too says:

      I’m pretty sure you meant to say “representing” but “repressing” was an awesome auto-correct.

      I agree with you. The Queen has had forever to build up all the goodwill. Charles will have such a short time (relatively) and no one likes him to begin with. William will be beyond middle age and all the shine will have rubbed off of him and Kate by then. The monarchy works so much better (popularity wise) with young kings and queens. Elizabeth 1 and 2, Victoria, as a few of examples, because people are rooting for them to do well and grow into their roles. (It also seems like people love female monarchs but the next 3 are all going to be men.) They represent the future and the younger generations. They represent hope and possibilities. The next couple of Kings are going to represent the older generations and their stories have already been written. There’s nothing fun or interesting to look forward to like the birth of the monarch’s first child, the first major cause or building project that the monarch takes up (Charles has already done so much. We know where he’s going charitably and politically). There will be no weddings of the monarch or the monarch’s children. We might get a grandchild or great grandchild getting married, but those are so far removed from the crown, they’re less exciting, less lavish and fun, the monarch has less of a part to play as grandparent of the bride/groom than they would as parent of the bride/groom. Same thing for christenings. The Queen doesn’t even go to all the christenings of the newest royal babies. But if it was her children being christened, she would be there, and it would be a big thing. No one is looking to the monarch as fashion inspiration when they’re 80, 90 years old. No one is looking to see what fun new interior design style the 80 year old monarch is embracing. It’s all old people looking old, in conservative old fashioned clothes, surrounded by other conservative old fashioned people, in an old fashioned-ly decorated room. Wouldn’t it be more fun to see a young person wearing the BIG jewels and crowns and cloaks that are reserved for the monarch? Instead we have a nearly 100 year old woman who is so old and frail that the crown has to be carried on a pillow and sat next to her. Boring.

      I have always believed that William will be the last monarch. It’s something my intuition tells me, it’s something that comes up in Tarot readings (mine and other people’s), and it seems to be an idea that more and more people are starting to voice. And when you voice things and put them out into the world, people begin to accept them as true.

      • Nyro says:

        This is a great point.

      • equality says:

        “And when you voice things and put them out into the world, people begin to accept them as true.” That’s something the BM should recognize as true. It would be funny if that lead to the downfall of the RF since that is the tactic they used on H&M.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Perhaps King William will be the end of the monarchy in 2066. Ties is up nicely with the 1066 anniversary, but I’d like to see it end earlier.

    • Lemon says:

      I also think that the Queen’s character, at least her public persona, is very quintessentially British. Her values are about duty, responsibility, and she’s very steadfast. She’s a cornerstone that people could find comfort in, she is almost the institution herself.

      Neither William nor Charles have these qualities. Maybe the difference is that Queen Elizabeth’s childhood didn’t revolve around her eventual ascension to the throne. Whereas William and Charles have been groomed and maybe that process isn’t something that makes kings or queens. The same with the first Elizabeth.

      Or it could be that she has a passion for playing the character of Queen, and a passion for the monarchy and for Britain in a way that neither Charles nor William have. William seems to want a quiet life, which is fine. Charles is a bit of a showpony and a narcissist, but he has zero charisma.

      Harry was always too fragile, the Meghan and Kate situation has been a huge mess. Kate would be a decent queen if William was more of king material. Meghan would have been a wonderful addition, but the culture shock, the racism, were a disaster.

      I know people in England who are incredibly left-leaning but really seem to have a soft quality about the queen that is not what I would consider spiritual, but intensely patriotic? Cultural? I think it’s a lot more complicated than I probably understand as an American.

      • SnoodleDumpling says:

        The only thing I have to compare it to is sports. It’s like England/the Church of England is the team and the royal family are the team mascots…or maybe the royal institution is like Disney and the family are the face characters walking the park.

        People have a lot of complicated feelings about Disney, and most people in Disneyland or Disneyworld would react with sputtering outrage or fear if someone just hauled off and punched Mickey Mouse or Cinderella.

    • KC says:

      This all saddens me.
      1-because it could be true
      2-because of the destabilizing effect it could have on Commonwealth countries
      3-because I have a feeling Meghan is going to be blamed for it.

  12. Moderatelywealthy says:

    She told no lies so I expect her to be given s”t because of it,as per usual.
    When it comes to the RF, the tabloids cannot abide any competition-tgey are the ones to bash the RF when it is convey. They resssent when people of intellect do.

  13. Belli says:

    She’s right, and more, for the monarchy to survive, the public NEED to keep on thinking that William is a better person than Charles. Even without calls for the crown to jump to Willy, Charles is old and there seems to be a general feeling that his reign could be endured because there’s better on the way.

    That’s why there’s such a desperate effort to protect Willy’s reputation. If his character becomes known, why should people keep supporting the monarchy when he could be on the throne for 40 years?

    • Nyro says:

      I wonder if Mantel has the inside track on just how awful the real William is. I’m sure, as someone who writes about historical European royal houses, that she must be privy to what’s going on with the current ones.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She absolutely nailed the real Kate with the Royal Bodies speech. It wouldn’t surprise me if she has the same ability to discern the real William.

  14. Amy Bee says:

    I agree with her.

  15. OriginalLala says:

    She tells the truth – she spoke no lies when she said what she did about Keen Guevara, and she speaks no lies here – the UK Monarchy is on its last legs.

  16. Merricat says:

    We’ve been saying it for some time now. The British monarchy is irrelevant, costly, and increasingly isolated by their medieval attitudes. They’ve lost global respect; their standing in the global community is lower than it’s ever been. George should start learning a trade now.

    • Becks1 says:

      George might be okay just because it seems like it would be a lot of work to dismantle the monarchy, but Charlotte and Louis definitely need to prepare for a life outside the royal sphere. If the monarchy is around in 20 years (which it probably will be), I don’t think there will be public support to pay for William AND his (at that point grown) children. I think a massive streamlining/slimming down/whatever we want to call it is going to happen by the time William and then George are on the throne and the other Cambridge children should be prepared.

      • JT says:

        Charlotte, and Louis especially, because he seems to be forgotten about, need to be prepared to make their own way but sadly that won’t be the case. I remember a story here saying that ALL of the Cambridge kids are being prepared for royal work and that’s how W&K want it. They don’t want anything else for them so I feel that those kids will be even more controlled than even Harry and William were. They are certainly not going to allow the kids to pull a Harry and join the army or live a life outside of the monarchy, giving them a taste of what’s really out there and finding out that it’s actually better.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It won’t be up to W&K to choose. If the people decide to fund only heir, that’s who gets funded. That’s what many other royal families are doing, and Harry has set the precedent of only the heir being a working royal. If the BRF wants to survive, the younger W&K children will be shoved out of the nest at 18.

      • Lady D says:

        nota, won’t William have millions if not billions of his own inherited money, more than enough for his children to enjoy a lifestyle similar to Kate’s in her early 20′s? As long as he’s paying for their upkeep, they can lounge their life away, like Princess Margaret.

      • notasugarhere says:

        That wouldn’t get to happen until after Charles has passed, and would have to be done with William’s private funds not Duchy funds. The Duchy board controls those funds, even when William is Duke of Cornwall. If the monarch, Charles, makes it clear those kids will not be working royals? I don’t see the Duchy defying their king (and former great money-raiser) to pay for the W&K kids to become EuroTrashRoyals like the Greek set.

        If Charles is king for 20 years, he gets to decide if he wants to strip HRH stylings from the younger grandchildren, and not allow them to be working royals during his reign. No one is going to then accept 30 year old W&K ‘children’ as working royals, just as they do not accept the idea of the York sisters being working royals.

  17. FluglyBear says:

    The queens vow to pledge her “ whole life life wether it be short or long” is a disaster. She should have retired at 65. Every Royal generation should. , a 95 year old Queen is just not serving anyone at this point. The dynamics would be so different. The royals have been living in the 50s – 70’d because that was Elizebeth prime. If they don’t excelerate the reigns so George is King by 40, I think her lint is on target. Nobody wants a 70 year old Kate and Will.

    • Nyro says:

      Nobody under 40 wants a 40 year old Will and Kate either. All of their hardcore fans are like 65 and up.

    • equality says:

      Do any of them “serve” anybody but themselves at any age. With her age and being Queen for so long it gives them the excuse for the big jubilees to bring attention. They wouldn’t have that if she had stepped down.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The BRF don’t abdicate, that endangers their already shaky monarchy. The succession will be based on deaths not retirements.

  18. Sofia says:

    No idea if she’s right obviously. But as a Brit, I just think there’s so much apathy regarding the royals that no-one really wants to get rid of them. Plus I think a lot like the pomp and circumstance associated with weddings/births. Plus no monarchy equals no peerage and there’s a lot of people who want to keep that latter going and want titles/acceptance from the aristos.

    On another note, her full interview with the times had this gem: “The tudors were smart but the Hanovers aren’t and you see the result of that now”. She didn’t say that word for word but that was what she was trying to say.

    • Keats says:

      As a non-Brit, it always seems like people like the Queen ok as a symbol or whatever, but could pretty much take or leave the rest of the royals. I’m genuinely not a royal watcher at all so I could be completely off the mark? But I feel like once the Queen is off the throne much of the remaining support will go away?

      • Sofia says:

        I don’t think you’re off the mark at all. You’re right that there’s a lot of support for the queen and that’s the main reason they’re currently going. And you’re also right that it doesn’t translate to the rest of the royals. Hence why it’ll be /very/ interesting to see what happens when she dies.

    • Moderatelywealthy says:

      There is apathy yes, but especially with the 40+ folks…there is no real love for them when it fines to the new generation, only a interest in their gossipy or adoration from the Retrograde set of all ages.

      What is keeping them alive is the alliance with the tabloids, the behind the scenes politicking they engage in and the Elites eager to keep the status quo. It is a pretty mighty alliance if you think of and by that I mean with such support they SHOULD have been in a better position , but here are they.

      My two cents? The Alt Right is scared of Charles abd his environmental concerns abd progressive leanings. They are pushing really hard for William to ascend and this step is what will eventually cost the Monarchy. Because for all the shitty ways of Charles at least he is capable.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      On top of that Apathy (which is the way the Royals actually want people to feel about them. That’s when their position is at its safest.) their is also the cost of getting rid of them. The entire government would need to be restructured. This would take a lot of time and money. It’s not as simple as throwing out the monarchy. They would need to rewrite the system. It would almost be a waste of time to get rid of the monarchy because you’d have to replace them with something else. Getting people to agree on what that is and such would lead to a lot of debate in parliament that ultimately stops more important things from getting done.

      • Sofia says:

        You’re right. Dismantling a 1000 year old system is going to take time and money. Heck look at how long it took us to officially leave the EU and that’s not an institution within the country that’s been around for a millennium. I also don’t think any party/prime minister really wants to go down in history as abolishing the monarchy and causing the massive headache that followed.

      • MrsBump says:

        Exactly. The monarchy didn’t just SUDDENLY become irrelevant, it has been for hundreds of years, the reason it has survived is that no one cares enough about them to overthrow it. It’s a formidable machinery that requires very little to keep it going.
        The Andrew Scandals or Sussexit generate news , noise and interest and eventually, the dust settles down again and the clogs of the machine keep on turning.
        Even if Martel predicts that it could all end with Georges, even she wouldnt bet money on it. That circus will outlast all of us

      • Eurydice says:

        Yes, I posted that below, probably at the same time. There are laws upon laws, the peerage system (life and hereditary), etc., etc., and the tentacles extend to the Commonwealth nations, too.

      • Moderatelywealthy says:

        Funny, but this reasoning- too expensive to get rid of them- is APATHY.

        And a lie.

        They have cost already more than what they give. Head of States are not supposed to be that exiensy. People would save money on the long run, but the only people thinking about the long game are the monarchists.

      • Sofia says:

        @ModeratelyWealthy: It’s not a lie. It’s the truth. As people have pointed out above, the monarchy is a 1000 years old and there’s laws upon laws regarding them which is going to take a lot of time, effort and even money to fully get rid of. As well as finding something to take it’s place. Then there’s the question of the peerage as that’s probably going to go too and you’ve got to deal with that – won’t be easy as members of the peerage make up a chunk of the government so you’ve basically got to build a part of the government from scratch.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        The British monarchy is also in a unique position that, unlike other constitutional monarchies, Britain doesn’t have a written constitution due to historical circumstance. England never had an absolutist monarchy that had to be abolished to create new democratic institutions, which also meant that the new constitutional incarnation of the monarchy has been defined in a written constitution (like fx in Denmark). In the case of Britain, the democratic institution developed slowly over a long period of time because of the vagaries of history, the Magna Carta under King John, Simon de Montfort’s parliamentarian rebellion, the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

        The very fact that Britain doesn’t have a written constitution will inherently make the abolition of the monarchy a time-consuming and fractious process (not to mention all the other factors mentioned). It is much much easier to abolish the monarchies in fx Scandinavia because of written constitutions where the role AND the limitations of the monarchy is put in writing and law. It is also easier because in a country like Denmark we’ve already started over from scratch in 1848 (which is why there’s never been a coronations since then. Instead it was decided that the new monarch would be proclaimed by the PM for symbolic reasons).

      • JT says:

        When you all say that the UK would have to find something to take it’s place, I’m never really sure what that means. The Brits have a parliamentary system so can’t you all just roll with that? The monarchy is mainly symbolic at this point, not counting when the royals try to screw with the laws for their own benefit, so would it really be that hard for the uk to define itself without them? It’s not like you guys have to start from scratch like we did in America and there are plenty of countries who have a parliamentary system and no monarch. As far as the commonwealth goes, some of the countries are already getting rid of Betty as it’s head, and you don’t need a queen/king in order to be apart of the commonwealth. Apologies if I’m not making sense or making everything too simplistic.

      • Moderatelywealthy says:

        You all misunderstood me. Politics is will. The definition.of politics is will. The non written Constitution is only a problem because the political elites say so. We are in the middle of an identity crisis where even a televised attempted Coup is now being titted as a “pacific demonstration” because gaslighting millions is apparently easy enough if your politics dictate so.

        Apathy is just an excuse not to move on because moving on includes reassesing the past and Brits have been incredibly uncomfortable into looking back at their colonial past for what it is.

        So, yes it would be a major undertaking to move on from Monarcy but the only real impediment is not the costs. It is the process itself.

        When the people wants something, it gets done. Fun fact: many colonial nations were duped into paying damages to their European overlords just to be granted freedom. So, I’d the Brits truly wanted, they would gladly pay to get rid of them. It is just they have been brainwashed into this notion it is “cheaper.”

        Cheaper than say what, pay for Will, for George, their wives hang ons, sobs abd daughters?

      • equality says:

        So what if it took time? Do people not have time? Would it take more money than is spent supporting the royals?

      • MrsBump says:

        if politics is simply a matter of time and will, how come the US hasn’t yet been able to resolve it’s gun crisis ? The will is there by a large part of the population, and it’s been going on and talked about for for long enough and that is a matter far more pressing and important that Britain changing it’s constitution, and yet it is still nowhere near resolved.
        Going back to the monarchy, other than the minority of republicans ( not the american ones), and people (mostly Americans) who are viewing the monarchy through the lens of Meghan and Harry, the will to replace that institution is simply not there. Nobody cares enough.

      • Sofia says:

        @Jt: Yes we would have to start from scratch basically. Getting rid of the queen means new head of state. Would we go with a President only like the US or would we have a prime minister and President like many other countries? If so, who gets to be President? Do we upgrade the current prime minister? Do we elect a new one? If so will new parties have to be formed? How long will it take to debate this? And since part of the peerage forms one chunk of government, what would replace the House of Lords? Do we create a senate like the US? If so how many senators would we have? What would term limits be? And government aside what happens to the peerage in general? Will their titles still be valid legally aka use them in their passports like they currently do? If so, what’s the point of getting rid of them? And what do we do with the royal money? Not the Duchys and sovereign grants but whatever is tried up in offshore accounts and the like? Having forensic accountants dig through them could take months if not years? And in general, how long could debating all of this take? Would the public get involved? Would we have referendums for everything? Would MPs just decide?

        It may seem like we can just snap our fingers, abolish the monarchy and create a new system in a few years but the reality is that it will take time and money to do so. You can want the monarchy abolished and also admit that the practicalities of it is not easy but again, still want it.

        @ModeratelyWealthy: I think you’re over simplifying this. This isn’t a simple “where there’s a will there’s a way”. There may be a will in the future, but the way is going to be difficult, time consuming and costly. It’s not as simple as “Well getting rid of the royals will be much cheaper than keeping them”. As I talked above, deciding and creating an alternate system will take time and there’s a lot of factors.

        You can want the monarchy abolished but admit it’s not going to be easy but still want it to happen.

      • Dee says:

        Start trimming the budgets, end the privileges and watch the royal family eat each other alive, figuratively. No need to undo the laws when not funding the excess will go a long way to ending it.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Sofia is absolutely right! The British monarchy is probably the one European monarchy that will be the most difficult to abolish by democratic means precisely because of the vagaries of history as I mentioned in my post above. Not just because of the issue of the unwritten constitution but also because in the complex way that royal property is entangled in the machinery of the Crown as the State.

        I’d like to offer a comparison to my own country, which has been a constitutional monarchy since 1849. Unlike Britain, Denmark went from an elective monarchy to an absolutist monarchy in 1660, which literally meant that the Monarch was the State. When Frederik VII agreed to a parliamentary democracy + an constitutional monarchy, drastic changes were made. A constitution that put limits on the role of the monarch was written, the majority of the royal properties were nationalized (most of the royal castles + the royal art collection, etc.). The finances of the DRF are strictly divided between public and private in a way that isn’t the case with the BRF because the Danish royals no longer have large estates that generate income.

        I think it will be very difficult to abolish the British monarchy democratically – but I think it wouldn’t be so hard to clip their wings significantly. They need to be drastically defunded and the Queen’s/King’s Consent need to be removed completely. The Monarch should have NO possibility to influence the laws of the land whatsoever.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Apathy can easily be replaced with anger, fury, and an overthrow. The idea that the BRF will continue to waste 600 million a year in taxpayer funds, live their pampered lives, but no one will EVER do anything about it? That’s wishful thinking on the part of monarchists, but isn’t reality.

      • Merricat says:

        Right on. The Commonwealth is ready to split, and Scotland is always on the verge. That’s when we’ll know the death spiral has begun in earnest, when they finally pull away. After that, it will be a slow circling of the drain.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Most Commonwealth countries probably have the paperwork all written up, just waiting until the day after QEII’s funeral to file. They’ll be the inspiration, along with Scotland once again leading a charge for Independence and EU membership.

      • Moderatelywealthy says:

        Sorry, not trying to oversimplify things. Just show that 1) they have been overselling the difficulties of getting rid of them for a really long time – not that the difficulties are not there abd 2) speaking on broad political science terms. ” Politics is will” is not my motto , but is the essence of understanding politic discourse.

        I don’t think it will come down in the next twenty years. As people pointed out, the beginning is the dismantling of commonwealth. This will take decades. William most probably will be King. He is pushing 40, so we can count on another 30 years of grift . As more dominos fall though and with the works going in one way and William boy going on another, George most likely get the PoW title, but nothing else .

      • notasugarhere says:

        Many Commonwealth countries will dump the monarchy the second QEII passes. That’s in a handful of years. Some may do it before, depending on how they respond to the whiter than white Windsors constantly f*cking up when it comes to anybody who isn’t white. Scotland? As the UK is going down in flames right now re. Brexit, Scottish independence isn’t going to take 20 years.

        Charles may end up king of England, Wales, Cornwall. That’s it. William may inherit that, but he’ll be the last monarch.

    • OUSD says:

      Absolutely agree. These Royals aren’t going anywhere. The peerage system is run by the elites in the UK and they are completely invested in ensuring the system keeps their privilege. As long as they get to stay the BRF isn’t going anywhere. Despite my immense hatred towards the entire BRF, I predict they will outlast us all.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Waiting to see if the Daughter’s Rights lawsuit in the European Court of Human Rights ever gets heard. It will be the first wrecking ball aimed at the male-only peerage system. While it still aims to support the peerage, merely removing male-only inheritance? If they are successful it means enormous changes and a public examination of that entire corrupt system.

      • JT says:

        @Sofia If you have a Prime Minister, do you need a head of state as well? So the PM couldn’t perform whatever duties the queen does right now as the head? For example, could it be possible for Bojo to host other heads of state, open parliament, and whatever else the queen does, while also running the country with the other members of parliament? I’m not saying it would be easy at all, but rather, can the UK not work within the system you all have now? No need to add a president or senate but just tweak how the parliament works. Thanks for responding.

      • Sofia says:

        @JT: Absolutely could! But what if people don’t want the PM a head of state? What if another party opposes it? What if people want to elect the head of state in their own right instead of giving the current person a promotion? It’s fine to say “well the PM can do it all” but if people don’t want that, then will they be listened to? And it’s not as easy as “tweaking” how parliament works. No monarchy will most likely mean no peerage which will equal no house of lords. What will replace the upper chamber? Will we just keep MPs (House of Commons) and PM to create laws and that’s it. If so, systems will need to be adjusted in order to accommodate that. That will take time and money. Again what if people don’t want that? What if a party opposes that? We can’t just remove a 1000 year old institution and make “tweaks” to the system. That’s not practical.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Oh heaven forbid The People of the UK actually get to vote in the representatives they want to run government. A handful of racist old white guys currently run the show, many of whom inherited the ‘right’ to do so. There are plenty of people who would like to see that change.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Sofia that is a great quote! Thanks for sharing it. I’m LOL

  19. Monica says:

    The best thing that could happen to George would be to never get to that throne. I really hope Ms. Mantel is right.

    • lanne says:

      I agree. Give that child a chance for a future instead of shacking him to the past. Whatever role the moarchy had to play in the UK will be finished with Queen Elizabeth, I think. She kept her pledge, but it was for worse instead of for better. By hanging on and on and on, she has allowed the monarchy to stagnate. I agree, she should have retired, but at 70. Or even 75. Charles should be getting ready to retire and getting ready for King William (as much as I think he isn’t suitable at all to be King–but maybe he would have had to take the role seriously if it were actually imminent for him). The UK monarchy will be old and stagnant while the other European monarchies will be young and more flexible. The differences will be stark.

      But back to George, it seems cruel in 2021 to tie an 8 year old boy to a role that he may very well not be suited for. It’s too large a burden for a child, as it can result in either fear (what we see from George) or entitlement (what we’ve seen from William since his childhood).

  20. Eurydice says:

    Well, it certainly seems that the monarchy is irrelevant, but I wonder if dismantling it will be harder than Brexit – 1,000 years worth of laws and tradition, across many countries. If they want to get rid of the monarchy in 2 generations, they’d better start now.

  21. Noor says:

    2 generations … meaning the monarchy will be around for the next 60 years. Is that too long ?

    A constitutional monarchy that is dependent on public support mediated by the tabloids has no legs to stand on.

    • Moderatelywealthy says:

      History major here. I think Hilary Mantel is spot on. Institutions like BM either die by revolution or a slow death.

      Let’s be frank: it has been in slow death since the 90 at least. Two generations, meaning George dies not get the Throne or gets briefly a very reduced one, seems more likely.

      50-60 years. I might not be alive to see, but who cares, right?

  22. line says:

    The British monarchy has been irrelevant, for years 1970s, Princess Diana allowed the breath of mysticism and a glamor but above all it redefined the role of a monarchy in the 19th century.

    Since this day, the Windsor refusal to modernize and their dysfunctional family’s relationshep made them totally irrelevant. They have become in the eyes of the people as mere celebrities. And others celebrities and other big fortunes can do better charity work that will have a lot more impact that their, and blue blood superior mythology a gone.

    Only the queen by the respect she has and the longevity of her reign protects them from attacks. When she dies, the indulgence of the people in the face of their scandals and behavior will also disappear. Charles and William have already shown by their characters that will make bad monarchs. As much as I can see Charles succeeding in maintaining his reign as much I have no hope of part of William. He and Kate by their laziness and their behavior will damage the monarchy to such an extent that the population will want a referendum.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I don’t think it is respect for the Queen, per say, but rather familiarity. And that familiarity has led to plenty of contempt for her and her family.

  23. Nyro says:

    I love the look on her face in the photo. She’s like “Yeah, bish. I said it. And what?”

    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ Nyro, yes. She doesn’t care in the slightest as to the labels that she has placed on the Royal family, and she has KKKeen Guevara’s number!! As for her predictions, I hope it happens as there is no need for any country to be ruled by a Monarchy that offers nothing to those who live under its thumb. She is quite impressive as far as I am concerned, but I do think that TOBB will certainly damage the Monarchy beyond repair due to his inability to actually be king. He doesn’t have any of the characteristics to be king, yet alone any position of power.

  24. Case says:

    She sounds very wise. I think when the Queen dies it’ll be all downhill from there. People seem to like Elizabeth enough and respect her. But Charles is hated and in the past few years Will has become hated, too.

    • Aidevee says:

      William really isn’t hated here. Most people still think he’s great or at the very least, not offensive. I don’t know how he manages this. Maybe that’s different omg very young people, I don’t know.

      • notasugarhere says:

        That viewpoint is a very small percentage of online posters and hand-picked YouGov participants. It does not reflect the overall opinions of 67+ million people, many of whom want the monarchy out. The majority of W&K supporters, who again are a small small subset of the population, trend elderly, white, Brexiteers, Little Englanders. In other words, the past not the future.

  25. Aidevee says:

    I wonder if she means that the current royal family will be gone within two generations; as opposed to the Crown itself. Our systems of government need the Crown – it’s what holds all our precedents and conventions together. You can’t just get rid of all that without replacing it with something else. The questions is, who or what? I saw a brilliant argument once about the possibility of having a royal Plank of Wood. It holds all the sacred mysteries of state, but is cheaper and can’t shag about. It would be wheeled out at state occasions and carried about with great pomp, forever. It was a great idea – maybe not for this website though!

    • lanne says:

      An actual plank of wood as opposed to the more expensive human equivalents! I love it!

    • notasugarhere says:

      The UK government does not need a monarch. People on here are acting as if the Queen actually does anything, other than signing papers handed to her by the people who actually run government. The UK government can (and will) transition away from monarchy sooner rather than later.

      • The Hench says:

        Transition is right – Charles has already started the process ironically with his slimmed down monarchy malarkey. It would be a pretty easy step to get rid of the ‘family’. I doubt even monarchists would blink at the removal of Wessexes, Gloucesters, Kents and Anne leaving just C&C, W&K and George (when of age).

      • Christine says:

        I will laugh so hard if he transitions out Anne, and is left with only the Lazies. Surely he recognizes she is the only one who can actually be counted on for anything?!

    • Emma says:

      The remnants of empire can and should be dismantled. The monarchy should also go as a political/legal entity. Free your minds.

    • Nic919 says:

      Canada, Australia and all the other countries who still have the Queen as head of state manage to run a government without her being involved at all. The Governor General (who is appointed by the prime minister) basically consents to whatever the Prime Minister of the day tells them to do. Switching to a similar system as Ireland where the head of state is symbolic and is the one meeting foreign dignitaries is something that could easily be done in the commonwealth countries. There is no cultural connection to the Windsor family outside of the UK. And it is only the monarch who is the symbolic head of state. No one else in that family holds any relevance to the commonwealth countries. Even the consort.

      • Elle says:

        As to the involvement of the Queen in Australian politics, see Gough Whitlam.

      • Lady D says:

        You can find cultural connections to the RF in Victoria, BC. There is also a huge royalists contingent in Toronto, Ont. I’m sure there are many parts of Canada who still celebrate and love the Royals. They certainly make themselves known when discussion of a republic start. Some of them enjoy smirking over the fact it would be so difficult to separate us from the Queen. I stay away from those boards now, it’s just arguments and accusations of hating the First Nations people and why do you want to dismantle our country?

  26. Siul says:

    I’m not a British subject so I don’t know if my words have meaning. But it seems that the Royal family don’t fit in the 21st century. Everything they do is so old-fashion. They don’t have real jobs like 99% of the population yet make millions a year. They have mansion, palaces, and castles, and all for what? Maybe she is right that in two generations the royal family will be irrelevant…if not already. I don’t hate them but I just don’t see them being part of the 21st century.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They don’t make millions. They waste 600+ million a year in taxpayer funds.

      • Lady D says:

        They also make millions, nota. Andrew and Charles ring any bells? William and the multitude of Royal Foundation investigations? They are sneaky and underhanded about it, but they are raking it in.

      • notasugarhere says:

        That may be so, but it isn’t related to what Siul was insinuating. That somehow they ‘have’ all the castles, mansions, etc. when many of those are taxpayer-owned. We can only hope someone sics the authorities on these royal foundations, as they had the authorities investigate one of Harry’s charities (and they found everything Harry and the charity had done was legal and proper).

  27. Athena says:

    I don’t understand this mindset that we can never get rid of the monarchy, that it would be too complicated. The Soviet Union can be dismantled but the people in the UK are stuck with this family for eternity?
    As far as peerage, those people can go on calling themselves Dukes, Earls, Counts or whatever like the Germans, Italians and other European descendants of former monarchs. Instead of someone having a seat in the House due to lineage, it can be done by election, as it should in a democracy.
    As more and more countries remove the queen as head of state and when the Commonwealth remove the British monarch as its head the relevancy of this monarchy becomes less and less. It’s possible that by the time it gets to William he’s only King of England.
    It’s probably true that the Tudors were smart and charismatic, this current family not so much. What is it going to take for the British people to realize that their “betters” are really not. The UK can start to break the generational trauma that is embedded in the class system by removing this family.

    • Emma says:

      I think the complications are vastly overstated. It could be done. The real issue is that those in power (the Tories) will resist the transition.

      • Lionel says:

        This. And, no matter how vociferous a small-r republican I’d be were I British, I shudder to think of the current government coming up with the system that replaces the monarchy.

    • Eurydice says:

      Well, the Soviet Union wasn’t so much dismantled- it went bankrupt and collapsed. And it had only been in existence for 70 years. But I don’t think anyone is saying the monarchy is eternal, just that it’s deeply entangled in the structure and culture of the country. I think Mantel is right – it’s not possible to modernize something whose very existence depends on outmoded values. The RF are basically mammoths screaming as they sink into the tar pits.

      What I wonder about is what the division of assets would be and who now pays exactly what for the maintenance of the Crown assets. Buckingham Palace, for example – there would be no need for staff to support the Queen, but there would still need to be staff to maintain the building, grounds and contents. And if it becomes a museum for tourists, even more staff. I’m woefully ignorant about all this, but it seems that no amount of tourism would cover the cost, and this would be the same for the other Crown real estate assets, not to mention jewels, art, libraries, and other artifacts. Would there be much money saved by getting rid of the monarchy? Maybe from a pragmatic view, getting rid of the monarchy would be more trouble than it’s worth? And in the meantime, they provide entertainment value.

      • OriginalLala says:

        plenty of former palaces are now museums in other countries, and they are wildly successful (Versailles is a big one). The amount of public $$ the BRF spends on themselves is ginormous, and we have no idea what the true cost is – there is a reason it’s not shared with the public, people would freak.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        “But I don’t think anyone is saying the monarchy is eternal, just that it’s deeply entangled in the structure and culture of the country.”

        EXACTLY!!!!!!!

        There’s also another factor we need to consider, and that is the one of national identity – and in the really old European monarchies, the institution of the monarchy itself is deeply embedded in the narratives that inform how our national identities are shaped. To be frank, I don’t think the Americans on this board really understand this because the story of America is grounded in a very different type of narrative, one of radical disruption instead of one of a deep and long continuity. It is really hard to understand this aspect as an outsider. Fx I really didn’t understand how much Britain’s status as an island nation marks the national identity, even down to somewhat banal stuff. I only grasped this after living there for a year – and thus to me Brexit didn’t really come as a surprise. If you don’t live in it, you can’t really even come close to get an inkling of how these kinds of national narrative make their mark in subtle and myriad ways.

      • Eurydice says:

        @Originallala – my point is that the public is probably paying for the upkeep of all these properties already, so the notion that they will save money by abolishing the monarchy might be a pipe dream. And I don’t know about Versailles, but I do know about museum finances in the US. Museums can be wildly successful as far as foot traffic and still not make any money. In fact most are just scraping by and they wouldn’t be able to make it at all without rafts of donors and volunteers.

      • notasugarhere says:

        ArtHistorian, that may be true in Denmark where you have one of the oldest surviving monarchies. The concept of an historic monarchy didn’t survive the French or Russian revolutions, and those dynasties were lengthy ones.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Nota

        There’s a NOTABLE difference here – both the French and the Russian monarchies were abolished through bloody revolutions that evolved into tyrannical states that killed their own citizens. Very different from considering the many many roadblocks that exists for a peaceful and democratic abolishment of an ancient monarchy, whose long existence is deeply woven into the fabric of national identity. People don’t act in a purely rational manner – and like I said, Americans really don’t understand how deep some of these sentiments go and just how subtle indoctrination goes on simply by growing up in an ancient monarchy.

        I’m not saying that it is impossible that the British monarchy will end but I’m saying it would be a protracted, expensive, complicated and emotional process that I really don’t think that there’s any real desire for. Many people may be apathetic when it comes to the royals and there may be a segment that would like to see it disappear but the question remain: will they actually actively campaign for it? I’m doubtful (and I’m basing that on both historical precedent and lived experience). The English hasn’t challenged the very notion of the monarchy’s existence for 400 years! In fact, the republican movement in Britain is rather ineffectual.

        Things are complicated because of politics, the social-economic composition of the ruling elite as well as emotional investment in a very particular narrative of shared identity – and I think that you and other commenters really simplify things from an outside perspective.

        Personally, I think the closest Britain will come to the abolishment of the monarchy be a slow slow withering of the BRF through defunding and possibly the disintegration of the United Kingdom (i.e. Scotland and possibly NI leaving). Conservatism run deep in Britain and the political left has never been as powerful and culturally influential as it has been in Scandinavia. Not to mention that the class system is palpably entrenched in a way that is hard to grasp unless you’ve actually lived there and come into direct contact with it in various ways. When I lived in England I experienced people constantly trying to pigeon-whole me in terms of class – and I attended a university with a strong leftist history and general profile. It was a bizarre and exhausting experience.

      • notasugarhere says:

        There is a deep, deep well of violence running throughout the UK. I would by no means put a violent revolution on the list of impossibilities. I see many European countries as powderkegs, the UK is one of them. Conservatism runs deep in the aged, white population – which is on the decline. The UK isn’t what many perceive it as, and those violent undertones have been brewing since the 1950s.

        The BRF may slowly decline and end that way, or they may end up being ousted in a bloody revolution. Either one is possible with the current state of the UK, much less when things get even worse after Brexit. The absolute fury that rides just beneath the surface shouldn’t be underestimated. We’ll see a lot of it when the Queen dies and Charles inherits all that wealth without paying any tax.

  28. Yikes says:

    I don’t disagree with her, but I can’t love her – she supports JK Rowling’s bigoted ass.

  29. Abby says:

    I’m so curious how this will effect whichever future king gets ousted after being raised to think he has this “duty” ahead of him to his country/expectation of being a king. Will it be George that goes off the rails? George’s kids? I also wonder how much money they’ll get to “keep” and how much will get absorbed into the UK ..govt, or wherever it would go.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They’d keep Balmoral, Sandringham, and what Liz Windsor has personally in her private coffers. None of the govt property (Crown Jewels, Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, etc.). There might be debate over Duchy of Lancaster, which I suspect the Windsors would lose. They’d also be required to pay minimum 40 percent on that wealth, which they currently dodge.

  30. susan says:

    it’ll be sooner, I predict. Once the queen passes, I think that both Canada and Australia will begin the process of quitting the Commonwealth. Once that happens the smaller nations will depart. A country shrunken by Brexit and the ridiculous Johnson, economically “Britain” is effectively done. I don’t see Charles as being a successful king, his petulant nature and lack of gravitas make him a poor fit for the institution, and his fuddy-duddiness will doom him with the younger generation. And William will appear more and more to be just like his father.

    I give it maybe 5 years. possibly less.

    • OriginalLala says:

      I hope you’re right about Canada, I hate that we are still part of this gong show.

    • Jaded says:

      Unfortunately if Canada decides it wants to cut ties with the commonwealth it will be a long and arduous process. All provinces and territories will have to have separate referendums on the matter, as will a large number of First Nations peoples who have separate treaties with the Crown. It will be a very difficult and tangled situation to unravel and likely take decades to resolve.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Given the school horrors that have been revealed recently, I would hope many First Nations peoples are seriously reconsidering any ties with The Crown that oversaw/directed the atrocities.

    • Amanda says:

      I think so too.

  31. Grant says:

    From your mouth to God’s ears, Hil!

  32. Here4Tea says:

    Charles, when or if he ascends to the throne, will not be a ‘beloved’ king, but I think he will be successful one. I think he has an some idea of the reforms that need to be made, as much as one can reform a hereditary monarchy. Elizabeth was raised by Edwardians, and, for all her longevity, she has failed to truly appreciate the societal changes that occurred during her reign. Charles has basically been the understudy waiting in the wings his whole life and will, I think, be aware of his mother’s failures.
    So I think Chas will steady the ship – but only temporarily, because William doesn’t have the political nous or smarts, lacks any emotional intelligence. Also, I think William is even more out of touch with the day to day realities of life than Charles. I William ‘s ultimate fate is to be our last monarch.

  33. Galisteo says:

    It is wild to hear someone be so blunt on this topic. Caroline Myss, who generally writes on spiritual matters, but also archetypes, predicted Elizabeth will be the last Queen of England. So there is room for the male line. She said the monarchy would end not too far off, but not in our generation, when asked. So that falls in line with Mantel’s comments.

  34. Theothermia says:

    The last Emperor of China was dethroned, and became a gardener. He was much happier as a gardener. I knew his granddaughter. Mantel isn’t attacking a child, she’s saying George might not have this dumb crap his whole life.

  35. jwoolman says:

    I wonder if anybody has pointed out to George that he can just say no when it’s his turn to be king. He can prepare for an ordinary life and very deliberately live it if he wants. Let them go all the way down the line of succession until they find a willing sucker.

    Maybe he’s a little young to realize this at the moment, but at some point – the fact that he really does not have to be king if he does not want to be king may be empowering for him.

    • clomo says:

      Charlotte is their only chance, but it’s highly unlikely.

      • notasugarhere says:

        What is this insistance that somehow Charlotte is a better option? They are all children, being raised by the same set of useless parents and manipulative Granny Carole. I doubt any of the W&K will be saviours of anything but themselves (if that).

  36. jwoolman says:

    Besides Scottish independence and Commonwealth disintegration, they are likely to lose Northern Ireland to independence as well. Both Scotland and Northern Ireland wanted to stay within the EU, and with independence they could rejoin. That would make things a lot simpler for both countries.

    They could also gradually loosen up the monarchy as well. They might begin by just turning Buckingham Palace into a public place like a museum etc. and not supporting other royal places, so the monarch etc. would have to live in their own digs and just be trotted out for purely ceremonial reasons. The royals have their own wealth, let them use it.

    Also, they could scrap the idea of royal patronages and just have charities rely on normal fundraising and direct government funding like the rest of the world. It’s always seemed odd to me to rely on people born into the role who most likely do not have the skills or temperament to be the public face of anything or at all useful on a board.

    I have never understood the House of Lords, so no comment…

    • notasugarhere says:

      Being monarch is a government job, it needs to be treated as such. You get one set of taxpayer-funded digs. One. Not a massive place, just rooms within another structure that is mostly open to tourists. Minimum work requirements, annual reviews, strict budgets, and requirement to pay your own security when you flit off on holiday or want to live in a private home.

  37. chitowngal says:

    I agree with Ms. Mandel. In my opinion, the WWII generation bonded with QE over the shared trauma of war and their kids remember the earlier years of her queenship as a time of prosperity, family values etc., that make them nostalgic for their own childhoods. There is no such feeling for the rest of the family and people are less likely to tolerate royalty, when they are struggling to stay in the same socioeconomic class as their parents, or can’t move from lower-working class to the middle class. Diana left people with the feeling that she empathized with them and cared about the less fortunate, etc., ‘despite being royal’. William and Harry were expected to be as charismatic as she was, which I think was unfair, but now the royal family’s problem seems to be that people don’t believe they can be empathetic BECAUSE they’re royal. Meghan and Harry might not have been able to save the monarchy, but their empathy and authenticity would have made people less likely to criticize its existence.

  38. Rea says:

    I agree. I actually thought the monarchy would end sooner than that because the royals are not offering a lot. Their at most like a better made TV show that would put the Real Housewives and the Kardashians to shame. I would pay $$ to see a show based on what happened behind the scenes because the people who work inside the monarchy are visious. They put my coworkers to shame which is ironic as my job department has a high turn out rate. We lost 3 people in less than one year..it speaks volumes of the environment.

  39. abolish monarchy says:

    A comment above by user Mac said: “No matter how much the BRF reaches out to younger generations, supporting the pinnacle of the British class system does not align with their values.” And that hits the nail on the head.

    It’s not just the British family that’s the problem. Monarchy around the globe is the problem.

  40. Keri says:

    So what some of us are saying is that a few upper class, rich individuals have a vested interest In the longevity of the monarchy compared to the majority of us commoners who are only just starting to get a peek behind the curtain. Charles will serve his term because he actually seems interested in doing the work but William won’t finish his. By the time his scandals and bs start being publicised then we’ll all realize we don’t know shit. I bet it will be quite the show.
    My african country is in the commonwealth and to date I have never forgotten that they all sat back while someone called Archie a monkey……I bet I am not alone. I don’t know how a country goes about detaching itself from another’s monarchy but if there’s some kind of vote involving the common folk, ladies and gentlemen, I have never voted in general elections in my country but for that I will show up.

Commenting Guidelines

Celebitchy aims to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment