King Charles III, Prince Regent, in 3 years?

[Lincoln Republican]

Will this actually happen?

Please discuss.

Secret plan has Prince Charles set to take over for the Queen in 3 years :  Report

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/video/news/report-secret-plan-has-prince-charles-set-to-take-over-for-the-queen-in-3-years/vi-BBP9XYx

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

She won’t abdicate, but it’s perfectly reasonable for her to step back a bit. Charles III will likely take the name George VII if I’m not mistaken.

[Lincoln Republican]

She won’t abdicate, but it’s perfectly reasonable for her to step back a bit. Charles III will likely take the name George VII if I’m not mistaken.

That is possible I suppose.

But Prince Charles has been known around the world for 70 years as Charles, so I rather think he will reign as King Charles III.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If she were to fall ill, I think there well could be a regency, but I doubt Elizabeth will set a schedule.

[Lincoln Republican]

If she were to fall ill, I think there well could be a regency, but I doubt Elizabeth will set a schedule.

Thank you.

True Federalist, when Charles becomes King, assuming he does, do you think he will take the name of Charles III or George VII?

Also, do you believe he will give his wife Camilla the title of Queen Consort, or will she be known as Princess Consort?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If she were to fall ill, I think there well could be a regency, but I doubt Elizabeth will set a schedule.

Thank you.

True Federalist, when Charles becomes King, assuming he does, do you think he will take the name of Charles III or George VII?

Also, do you believe he will give his wife Camilla the title of Queen Consort, or will she be known as Princess Consort?

If he'd received the throne at an earlier age, I think he'd have been more likely to choose the George VII option, but now he'd likely pick Charles III for his brief reign, if he has one. There's a good chance he'll predecease Elizabeth and that William V is the next king.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Hopefully it doesn't happen so soon, because our current plan for a republic is to agree on the necessary changes, but not implement them until the Queen actually dies. And given our political instability, 3 years isn't nearly enough time for us to get everything sorted out.

[PSOL]

Would we see a resurgence in republicanism after Elizabeth II, or is there enough support for prince Charles to maintain the Monarchy’s popularity.?

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Would we see a resurgence in republicanism after Elizabeth II, or is there enough support for prince Charles to maintain the Monarchy’s popularity.?

>Charles
>Popular

I mean, literally the only remotely likeable thing about him is his environmentalism. Other than that he's a gaffe prone, casually racist, Diana divorcing, old white man. He has literally no likability.

Also, a resurgence where? You won't see a resurgence in Britain, but in the commonwealth you most certainly will. Especially in Australia.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Would we see a resurgence in republicanism after Elizabeth II, or is there enough support for prince Charles to maintain the Monarchy’s popularity.?

I imagine William and Catherine are popular enough that the monarchy will survive Charles' reign, although I expect Labour to start making a push for abolishment if they're still under their current leader once Elizabeth passes.

[Hnv1]

Would we see a resurgence in republicanism after Elizabeth II, or is there enough support for prince Charles to maintain the Monarchy’s popularity.?

I imagine William and Catherine are popular enough that the monarchy will survive Charles' reign, although I expect Labour to start making a push for abolishment if they're still under their current leader once Elizather passes.

British Labour? Why would they, I doubt most Labour voters/members/MPs are republicans.

Also, correct me if I’m wrong but most young Australians support the monarchy. Too young to remember the 70’s

[parochial boy]

In an ideal world, the monarchy would be abolished. And their undeserved wealth would be seized and redistributed

[brucejoel99]

In an ideal world, the monarchy would be abolished. And their undeserved wealth would be seized and redistributed

The British monarchy costs 40 million pounds to maintain. That's about 65 pence per person per year of tax money going to the royal family.

The reason the monarchy gets that tax money is b/c, once upon a time, King George III was having trouble paying his bills & had racked up debt. While he owned huge tracts of land, the profit from their rental was too small to cover his expenses. He offered a deal to Parliament: for the rest of his life, he would surrender the profits from the rents on his land in exchange for getting a fixed annual salary & having his debts removed. Parliament took him up on the deal, guessing that the profits from the rents would pay off long-term. Just how well did parliament do?

Back to the present, let's compare their profits & losses: the cost to maintain the royal family today is 40 million pounds per year. But the revenue paid to the UK from the royal lands is 200 million. 200 million in revenue minus 40 million in salary costs equals 160 million pounds in profit. That's right: the United Kingdom earns 160 million pounds in profit, every year from the royal family. Doing the individual’s math again, 160 million pounds divided by 62 million people is about 2 pounds & 60 pence. B/c of the royal family, a British taxpayer's taxes are actually 2 pounds & 60 pence cheaper each year than they'd otherwise be.

So stop all your moaning about the royal family & how much they cost & how worthless they are. Financially speaking, the monarchy is great for Great Britain.

But perhaps that's not enough for you b/c you're a real greedy geezer. Why not kick they royals out & keep 100% of the revenue. B/c it's still their land. George III wasn't crazy enough to give up everything, just the profits. And it wasn't only him: every monarch since George III has voluntarily turned over the profits from their land to the United Kingdom. Again: voluntarily. If the government stopped paying the royal family's living & state expenses, the royals would be forced to take back the profits from their land. And your taxes, dear Sir/Madam, would go UP, not DOWN.

Plus, 160 million is just the easily measurable money the United Kingdom makes from the royal family. Don't forget their huge indirect golden goose: tourists. Annoying though they might be to the locals by blocking the tube & refusing to stand on the right, they dump buckets of money on the UK to see the sights, many among them royal sights (especially the most expensive sights).

TL;DR the British monarchy is already a financial golden goose for the British people in the status quo, don't be stupid & try to take that away.

[PSOL]

Would we see a resurgence in republicanism after Elizabeth II, or is there enough support for prince Charles to maintain the Monarchy’s popularity.?

>Charles
>Popular

I mean, literally the only remotely likeable thing about him is his environmentalism. Other than that he's a gaffe prone, casually racist, Diana divorcing, old white man. He has literally no likability.

Also, a resurgence where? You won't see a resurgence in Britain, but in the commonwealth you most certainly will. Especially in Australia.

What’s the situation like in Australia? Are Labor and Greens in unison to republicanism. Are there Republicans in the National coalition?

Also wouldn’t the Monarchy still do publicity stunts in the events of its abolishment. I see that Royal weddings still appear across anglophone media as front page stories.

[parochial boy]

In an ideal world, the monarchy would be abolished. And their undeserved wealth would be seized and redistributed

The British monarchy costs 40 million pounds to maintain. That's about 65 pence per person per year of tax money going to the royal family.

The reason the monarchy gets that tax money is b/c, once upon a time, King George III was having trouble paying his bills & had racked up debt. While he owned huge tracts of land, the profit from their rental was too small to cover his expenses. He offered a deal to Parliament: for the rest of his life, he would surrender the profits from the rents on his land in exchange for getting a fixed annual salary & having his debts removed. Parliament took him up on the deal, guessing that the profits from the rents would pay off long-term. Just how well did parliament do?

Back to the present, let's compare their profits & losses: the cost to maintain the royal family today is 40 million pounds per year. But the revenue paid to the UK from the royal lands is 200 million. 200 million in revenue minus 40 million in salary costs equals 160 million pounds in profit. That's right: the United Kingdom earns 160 million pounds in profit, every year from the royal family. Doing the individual’s math again, 160 million pounds divided by 62 million people is about 2 pounds & 60 pence. B/c of the royal family, a British taxpayer's taxes are actually 2 pounds & 60 pence cheaper each year than they'd otherwise be.

So stop all your moaning about the royal family & how much they cost & how worthless they are. Financially speaking, the monarchy is great for Great Britain.

But perhaps that's not enough for you b/c you're a real greedy geezer. Why not kick they royals out & keep 100% of the revenue. B/c it's still their land. George III wasn't crazy enough to give up everything, just the profits. And it wasn't only him: every monarch since George III has voluntarily turned over the profits from their land to the United Kingdom. Again: voluntarily. If the government stopped paying the royal family's living & state expenses, the royals would be forced to take back the profits from their land. And your taxes, dear Sir/Madam, would go UP, not DOWN.

Plus, 160 million is just the easily measurable money the United Kingdom makes from the royal family. Don't forget their huge indirect golden goose: tourists. Annoying though they might be to the locals by blocking the tube & refusing to stand on the right, they dump buckets of money on the UK to see the sights, many among them royal sights (especially the most expensive sights).

TL;DR the British monarchy is already a financial golden goose for the British people in the status quo, don't be stupid & try to take that away.

A bunch of land they own because their ancestors are rich? nah, they have absolutely no entitlement to it. Nationalise it all, including all their other trust funds and investment companies, and stop the parasites syphoning it off.

but yeah, whatever, you'll always find a way to carrying kowtowing to your natural superiors.

[brucejoel99]

In an ideal world, the monarchy would be abolished. And their undeserved wealth would be seized and redistributed

The British monarchy costs 40 million pounds to maintain. That's about 65 pence per person per year of tax money going to the royal family.

The reason the monarchy gets that tax money is b/c, once upon a time, King George III was having trouble paying his bills & had racked up debt. While he owned huge tracts of land, the profit from their rental was too small to cover his expenses. He offered a deal to Parliament: for the rest of his life, he would surrender the profits from the rents on his land in exchange for getting a fixed annual salary & having his debts removed. Parliament took him up on the deal, guessing that the profits from the rents would pay off long-term. Just how well did parliament do?

Back to the present, let's compare their profits & losses: the cost to maintain the royal family today is 40 million pounds per year. But the revenue paid to the UK from the royal lands is 200 million. 200 million in revenue minus 40 million in salary costs equals 160 million pounds in profit. That's right: the United Kingdom earns 160 million pounds in profit, every year from the royal family. Doing the individual’s math again, 160 million pounds divided by 62 million people is about 2 pounds & 60 pence. B/c of the royal family, a British taxpayer's taxes are actually 2 pounds & 60 pence cheaper each year than they'd otherwise be.

So stop all your moaning about the royal family & how much they cost & how worthless they are. Financially speaking, the monarchy is great for Great Britain.

But perhaps that's not enough for you b/c you're a real greedy geezer. Why not kick they royals out & keep 100% of the revenue. B/c it's still their land. George III wasn't crazy enough to give up everything, just the profits. And it wasn't only him: every monarch since George III has voluntarily turned over the profits from their land to the United Kingdom. Again: voluntarily. If the government stopped paying the royal family's living & state expenses, the royals would be forced to take back the profits from their land. And your taxes, dear Sir/Madam, would go UP, not DOWN.

Plus, 160 million is just the easily measurable money the United Kingdom makes from the royal family. Don't forget their huge indirect golden goose: tourists. Annoying though they might be to the locals by blocking the tube & refusing to stand on the right, they dump buckets of money on the UK to see the sights, many among them royal sights (especially the most expensive sights).

TL;DR the British monarchy is already a financial golden goose for the British people in the status quo, don't be stupid & try to take that away.

A bunch of land they own because their ancestors are rich? nah, they have absolutely no entitlement to it. Nationalise it all, including all their other trust funds and investment companies, and stop the parasites syphoning it off.

but yeah, whatever, you'll always find a way to carrying kowtowing to your natural superiors.

Just b/c somebody is rich doesn't mean they're evil, as you seem to be painting them. Furthermore, you seem to not be aware of basic information so let me clue you in to the fact that the British Monarchy has no power: in the UK, as a (representative) democracy, the people rule, & the monarchy is only permitted to rule by the parliament, w/ their "power" being derived from the duly-elected government of the day.

Additionally, the members of the British Monarchy are people; they're entitled to the same rights as you & I. In an "ideal world," they're entitled to the exercise of those same rights, due process, etc. (i.e. everything you & I & any normal non-Royal is entitled to), not least b/c those rights exist in morality as well as in law, & anything less being the case would be, frankly, unethical.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

In an ideal world, the monarchydemocracy would be abolished. And their undeserved wealthpower would be seized and redistributed to the Crown.

[parochial boy]

Just b/c somebody is rich doesn't mean they're evil, as you seem to be painting them. Furthermore, you seem to not be aware of basic information so let me clue you in to the fact that the British Monarchy has no power: in the UK, as a (representative) democracy, the people rule, & the monarchy is only permitted to rule by the parliament, w/ their "power" being derived from the duly-elected government of the day.

Additionally, the members of the British Monarchy are people; they're entitled to the same rights as you & I. In an "ideal world," they're entitled to the exercise of those same rights, due process, etc. (i.e. everything you & I & any normal non-Royal is entitled to), not least b/c those rights exist in morality as well as in law, & anything less being the case would be, frankly, unethical.

Maybe you want to do a bit more research kiddo - the UK has an unwritten constitution, which the current monarch hasn't challenged - but the next one has indicated he might be tempted to in certain ways; and that would be problematic.

Anyway, the point is weird toadying towards a bunch of privileged rich people because of some accident of history.

And yes, we all have the same rights - which is why putting me above the law like with the monarchy is sick and wrong; just as all concentrations of wealth an power are

In an ideal world, the monarchydemocracy would be abolished. And their undeserved wealthpower would be seized and redistributed to the Crown.

[Silent Hunter]

Would we see a resurgence in republicanism after Elizabeth II, or is there enough support for prince Charles to maintain the Monarchy’s popularity.?

I imagine William and Catherine are popular enough that the monarchy will survive Charles' reign, although I expect Labour to start making a push for abolishment if they're still under their current leader once Elizather passes.

British Labour? Why would they, I doubt most Labour voters/members/MPs are republicans.

Corbyn is a republican, but I somehow doubt he can carry his party with him on this issue.

[Lechasseur]

In an ideal world, the monarchydemocracy would be abolished. And their undeserved wealthpower would be seized and redistributed to the Crown.

[Lechasseur]

Being serious, I don't think this hypothetical planned regency will actually happen.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Just b/c somebody is rich doesn't mean they're evil, as you seem to be painting them. Furthermore, you seem to not be aware of basic information so let me clue you in to the fact that the British Monarchy has no power: in the UK, as a (representative) democracy, the people rule, & the monarchy is only permitted to rule by the parliament, w/ their "power" being derived from the duly-elected government of the day.

Additionally, the members of the British Monarchy are people; they're entitled to the same rights as you & I. In an "ideal world," they're entitled to the exercise of those same rights, due process, etc. (i.e. everything you & I & any normal non-Royal is entitled to), not least b/c those rights exist in morality as well as in law, & anything less being the case would be, frankly, unethical.

Maybe you want to do a bit more research kiddo - the UK has an unwritten constitution, which the current monarch hasn't challenged - but the next one has indicated he might be tempted to in certain ways; and that would be problematic.

Anyway, the point is weird toadying towards a bunch of privileged rich people because of some accident of history.

And yes, we all have the same rights - which is why putting me above the law like with the monarchy is sick and wrong; just as all concentrations of wealth an power are

Should all non-native Americans leave their country? I mean, taking this oand from the natives was an accident of history.

[parochial boy]

Just b/c somebody is rich doesn't mean they're evil, as you seem to be painting them. Furthermore, you seem to not be aware of basic information so let me clue you in to the fact that the British Monarchy has no power: in the UK, as a (representative) democracy, the people rule, & the monarchy is only permitted to rule by the parliament, w/ their "power" being derived from the duly-elected government of the day.

Additionally, the members of the British Monarchy are people; they're entitled to the same rights as you & I. In an "ideal world," they're entitled to the exercise of those same rights, due process, etc. (i.e. everything you & I & any normal non-Royal is entitled to), not least b/c those rights exist in morality as well as in law, & anything less being the case would be, frankly, unethical.

Maybe you want to do a bit more research kiddo - the UK has an unwritten constitution, which the current monarch hasn't challenged - but the next one has indicated he might be tempted to in certain ways; and that would be problematic.

Anyway, the point is weird toadying towards a bunch of privileged rich people because of some accident of history.

And yes, we all have the same rights - which is why putting me above the law like with the monarchy is sick and wrong; just as all concentrations of wealth an power are

Should all non-native Americans leave their country? I mean, taking this oand from the natives was an accident of history.

Well, no, it's completely different. The vast majority of Americans aren't rich because they have inherited wealth, property and power directly from their ancestors.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

American monarchists are a really bizarre breed, especially given that they inevitably know nothing substantial about the British monarchy, its powers or the British constitution.

Anyway, the single worst argument about the monarchy involves the costs. If you want to argue in favour of the monarchy, why not invoke the arguments of Burke or something, rather than get lost in this drivel about a few pennies being saved either way?

[Blair]

Ahhh the pain of bad takes.

Would we see a resurgence in republicanism after Elizabeth II, or is there enough support for prince Charles to maintain the Monarchy’s popularity.?

I imagine William and Catherine are popular enough that the monarchy will survive Charles' reign, although I expect Labour to start making a push for abolishment if they're still under their current leader once Elizabeth passes.

To nitpick it's Kate, not Catherine.

And no, Labour will never push for abolition. It's the one issue where Corbyn hid his views to the extremely left wing Labour electorate in 2015. Besides Charles is strangely liked for being weirdly progressive on issues like climate change.

In an ideal world, the monarchy would be abolished. And their undeserved wealth would be seized and redistributed

Plus, 160 million is just the easily measurable money the United Kingdom makes from the royal family. Don't forget their huge indirect golden goose: tourists. Annoying though they might be to the locals by blocking the tube & refusing to stand on the right, they dump buckets of money on the UK to see the sights, many among them royal sights (especially the most expensive sights).

TL;DR the British monarchy is already a financial golden goose for the British people in the status quo, don't be stupid & try to take that away.

Eh people go to Versailles to see the French Palaces, and they go to Germany and Poland for tourist attractions that no country would ever want to have to host. It's a pointless, repetitive and politically barren argument to have.

(It's free to stand outside Buckingham palace and gawk as most tourists do, the real money trap is the London Eye)