Queen Elizabeth II has died

What is the sentiment like in the UK about Charles vs William? Heard lots of people calling for him to just hand it over to William straight away.

I left the UK a year or so back and have been pretty anti-monarchist for as long as I can remember, so am probably not the best person to ask about the public mood on succession!

I think there are probably a lot of people like me who, while anti monarchy in general, were not particularly anti-Elizabeth. However now that she’s passed I would quite like the whole thing to be further de-emphasised, de-legitimised and removed from any remaining levers of power, however ceremonial or theoretical, and any remaining state subsidy, palaces and lands to be taken into public ownership etc etc.

How many are of these opinions I am unsure.

My hope is Charles does enough damage that we will finally get rid of the Monarchy

They're a popular couple for sure. I expect King Charles will be more 'active', in lieu of a better word, than the Queen was and thus more controversial. He's long been vocal in eco/green/environmental subjects in particular, which might be very interesting.

It is said that the Queen was 100% against the idea of monarchs retiring. I suppose that harks back to the abdication crisis, but also undermines the concept of royalty altogether.

He's also a big proponent of quack medicine such as homeopathy, which isn't great IMO.

I was told a few years ago that there's a general expectation that Charles will mostly focus on some long overdue reforms of how the Royal Family operates e.g. with respect to their business and land holdings, whilst leaving 'normal' politics behind. There have been changes he felt were important for years that he couldn't do whilst he wasn't King. And after that he might retire.

Not sure how much truth there was to all that but it was a family member who told me and they follow this stuff a lot more than I do. It sounds plausible at least, and if that's how he does things, and then William becomes King, the monarchy might stick around for a while longer yet.

Charles isn't liked as much due to the Princess Diana situation (which didn't paint the Queen in great light either), but he'll be accepted as King. William doesn't seem to be as much in the spotlight as he used be.

That's true, I can't remember the phrasing but wanting a more 'slimmed down working royal family unit' as it were is another thing he's been vocal on. But I would say it has gone a lot more that way in recent years anyway, through some combination of the Queen agreeing/easing into it and 'helped' by some external factors of course.

> levers of power, however ceremonial or theoretical,

Less theoretical than many seem to think: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...

They do this in secret, to preserve the illusion.

Honestly, I think the US populous really feels the same about this but from the perspective our history. On the other side of the coin, is the UK has been one of longest running allies in the world with a common history born out of the womb of war. The romantic nature of nobility runs from a far, without the struggles of having the institution in that format - though some would argue we do, but in the oligarchy of wealth. I need not go further, as it treads that fine line.

I myself, am in agreement however. If governance of the UK would modernize, the removal of generational status like what a monarch represents would be a step in the right direction. Why one would do that, and loose the history in the process? Not sure if the UK populous is ready for that, since its still a beloved part of the country and outwardly is a hallmark of the country's brand.

I digress. I am probably just speaking ill of the dead to some, but just glad to be in the US for our representation structure of legislation and executive by proxy. Direct Democracy is the red headed step child of mob rule, and I'm content to not have that either.

Not necessarily a bad thing, TBH. Think of it like our Senate in the US. The Senate is a longer view, while the House is the shorter populous public-opinion. Not sure of the Parliamentary influences, but someone who was as respected and revered in an status where one COULD get the longest view on staff (so to say) - why not?

The Senate doesn't pretend they're powerless figureheads who exist for tourism while exercising power in secret.

Before anyone dismissed this as a cheap shot or ungenerous, we need to remember that this is likely our only route to a republic given the absurd biases in uk media and establishment.

In what meaningful and useful sense will a republic be different from what the UK is now?

Be very careful what you wish for

I think this is a pretty common opinion, certainly among people I know.

Well, it would be a lot harder to sack president Boris /s.

I defer to the historian Niall Ferguson who said (I paraphrase) that purpose of monarchy is to protect the people from its government. From a UK perspective, it seems to work.

Charles wrote a book on philosophy (Harmony:a new way of looking at the world) that is truly amazing. Please read it, it is very good.

It starts with “this is a call to revolution…”

A philosopher king!

What sort of GPT-4 wrote this?

The existence of the US senate is a disaster, making the country practically ungovernable (it’s extremely difficult to pass any law without both parties agreeing). It’s really not a great comparison.

I think most people would prefer William, but if you'd have waited over seventy years to become King of England, how likely do you think it would be that once you'd finally become King you'd pass it over?

Charles is going to milk his kingship for everything it's worth.

So was the queen. The kind they practice is a lot more occult than your common highstreet homeopath, and more akin to the kind espoused by Czech magician Franz Bardon, and other occultists that the likes of us will never have even heard of.

>Think of it like our Senate in the US. The Senate is a longer view, while the House is the shorter populous public-opinion.

Huh? Is a six year term rather than a four year term rally that much longer a horizon. Maybe this view made since when the senate seats were an appointed position. but ever since it became an elected position its ceased to have any appreciable difference from a seat in the house.

The biggest problem with this is that with modern medicine and the world class treatment the head of state receives, you are destined to end up with geriatric heads of state. For example, it would be unlikely to have a 40 year old King or Queen. Maybe that's okay, but there's something nice about the idea of a monarch starting their rule at a relatively young adult age.

It works in many subtle ways.

But let’s take one example: the monarchy and the ludicrous rules and conventions that go with it to govern parliament are just one way working class MPs are intimidated and given the information that they are not really welcome in the corridors of power.

Let’s remember also that the British people have not sacked Boris. Conservative mps worried for their personal survival sacked him and 300,000 old white people from the south east of England have, for the third time in recent years, made Truss our PM. She has no regard for the manifesto that her party was elected on. Everything is by convention in the UK, which means people with privilege can do whatever they like.

If the Queen had retired, there might have been a little opportunity for a national conversation about what comes next. As it is, it would be seen as disrespectful to question the succession. The Queen is dead; Long live the King.

As for people preferring William to his father - I think if you give an inch to the notion that the public should have some choice over their head of state then the idea of a hereditary monarchy starts to look pretty absurd.

Reminds me of when when the rules of succession where changed so that the first-born child would inherit the title (rather than the first-born son). Any attempt to reconcile the monarchy with the concept of equality seems a kinda humourous to me.

> I think most people would prefer William, but if you'd have waited over seventy years to become King of England, how likely do you think it would be that once you'd finally become King you'd pass it over?

I don't know, if I never had a job I am not sure I would want one at 76!

To be honest, most people I know around my age don't really care too much. I'm hoping he'll use his soft power for talking about and trying to push changes to combat climate change though, he at least seems genuine about that.

How they operate? I mean what can they do beyond the sovereign fund, which takes the profit from their land and business holdings and gives them 15%~ (increased only for certain reasons, like Bham palace renovations), with the rest going to the government.

I think it's hilarious how the average person thinks that "the taxpayer" pays for the monarchy whereas realistically it's their family's holdings that pay for it. If they don't like that then strip them of their land, but strip everyone of their land; no inheritance for anyone.

And even then, whilst they have _some_ personal holdings, the majority of the royal estate cannot be sold by them for personal gain, it _must_ be passed down, it's not your typical inheritance.

As well as that, sure they live a cushy royal life, but I wouldn't want it for me. They are bound to royal duties, to act a certain way, do certain things, follow certain protocols - doing otherwise is shirking royal duties and that comes with its own consequences.

At the same time I think QEII was the last "true" royal. She was the last royal who exhibited at least some of what we would expect from the royals of old, King Arthur, etc. The modern royals, CIII onwards is the start of their decline, imo.

She lived for so long and through so much. Maybe she could have done more to help the everyman - but her power was limited, which is what the people chose - the Glorious Revolution.

Hereditary monarchy is only one kind of monarchy.

Early on, the Swedish king was elected at the Stones of Mora. The Holy Roman Emperor was nominally elected by prince-electors (who most of the time elected a Habsburg).

And even withing a hereditary framework, there are other alternatives to retirement in addition to outright abdication. An elderly monarch could for all intents and purposes retire and a let the crown prince (and I suppose in current British succession order, crown princess) rule, appointing them as a co-ruler.

> I can't remember the phrasing

I remembered, just too late to edit: 'streamlined' is how he's put it. Close family/'heir line' only, such as seen on more recent balconies.

Well, originally it wasn't designed to just having two parties. There used to be more ... and there should be more. A two party system just doesn't work.

Thank you for that recommendation, published 2010 and seemingly out of print, but I've ordered a second-hand copy.

I don't expect it's unusual for a monarch to be something of a philosopher though - they're somewhat inherently well-educated, thoughtful, devoting time to deep thought, etc. Less usual (in modern times anyway) is to hear their thoughts in public as we did while he was Prince of Wales; we'll see to what extent that continues - he has said he's 'not stupid' and that he recognises the role of sovereign is different. If I had to bet though, I imagine he does see a bit more room for public commentary than Elizabeth II made.

Their holdings gained at the expense of the population?

There’s a huge difference between a family that has gathered obscene wealth through royal privilege and families that pass on their moderate inheritances to children.

Let’s start by enforcing normal inheritance tax on them, rather than letting them sidestep it using family trusts.

We already have an upper chamber in the UK, the House of Lords.

House terms are two years, not four.