Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy

[BorbonFan]

This legal blunder has such an explosive potential that it may very well undo the British Monarchy, unless Prince Charles abdicates in favor of William. A series of prophecies speak of revolutions to come in Britain - and we all know whose heads roll during revolutions...

God bless!
Borbon Fan

[carl fraley]

COMPLETE RUBBISH

[CHRISinUSA]

I agree with you Carl, the very idea is rubbish.  BUT, the headline got me to thinking about a "What If" scenario idea for a thread.  What would life be like for the British Royal Family - and Britian as a whole - if the monarchy did end?  What would be the biggest visible changes?  There are so many intertwined links.  Here's how I'd see some developments.

The ending of the UK monarchy would hardly come in the form of a revolution - that's simply Un-British.  Instead, it would have developed slowly, probably thorugh a series of referendums.  But were it to happen, we'd have the Queen and DoE retiring to Sandringham and Balmoral, probably receiving a lifetime stipend as "former heads of state".  President Blair would be tasked with the monumental job of dividing up assets between "state", "private" and "crown".  The lawyers would have a field day - especially dealing with art, jewels, etc.

I'd guess the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall would remain in royal hands - they are, after all, separate from all other crown possessions, and belong to the Queen as Duke no different than the Duke of Westminster's properties belong to him.  Plus, it would seem fair for the state to provide the former reigning house with properties sufficient to generate enough income to live comfortably through the generations.  The Crown Estate, in contrast, would probably be handed over to the state.

St. James, Buckingham, Windsor and Hollyrood would likely become museums or government offices.  Maybe President Blair would move into Buckingham or St. James to enable them to remain the ceremonial center of the nation.  (Number 10 is hardly appropriate for the kind of formal entertaining that Britain is used to!).

Charles and Cam might be granted lifetime use of Clarence House (or maybe on a lease), or they'd retire to Highgrove and Birkhall.  Ditto for Andrew, who already has a lease on Royal Lodge.  Anne's estate at Gatcombe Park is privately owned, and Alexandria of Kent's is leased from the Crown Estate.  The Kents and Glouchesters and Michael's of Kent would probably have to leave Kensington, finding apartments or country homes to live out their days.

Gone would be the pagentry from Trooping the Color, Jubilees, and Royal Weddings and Funerals.  Oh, people would still come to London for the royals' weddings and funerals, but without the troops, carriages and hroses, such events would pale in comparison.

State Opening of Parliament would probably turn into a neo-political event like it is here in America.  (I always cringe when I watch our State of the Union address.  What was originally a dignified, formal report on the health of the union from the Head of State to Congress has become nothing more than a cheap series of political maneuvering).

Terms like crown, royal patronage, court circular, footmen, and state carriages would fade from use.  The ravens at HM's Tower of London (err - now the Tower of the Republic) could be set free.  Tiaras, enormous necklaces and broaches, sashes and medals would slowly become relics, relegated to museums and storage.

The younger generation of royals - the Wales brothers, York Princesses and Lady Louise - would take jobs with brokerage firms or art galleries or perhaps some Chairmanships of the Board, and live lives similar to the children of Britain's current mere aristocracy. 

Within a generaton, Britain would look politically, socially and otherwise like France, Germany or America. 

How sad that would be....

[Prince_Lieven]

Good analysis - especially about British people not really being the Revolutionary type of people; just look at the Glorious Revolution, completely bloodless!

[boffer]

As prince philip once sed, in relation to canada - although it at some times has seem relevent at home here in Britaain aswell. He sed that if we want the monarchy to end then let them know about it and it can be ended on good terms.

[TampaBay]

State Opening of Parliament would probably turn into a neo-political event like it is here in America.  (I always cringe when I watch our State of the Union address.  What was originally a dignified, formal report on the health of the union from the Head of State to Congress has become nothing more than a cheap series of political maneuvering).

Kinda reminds one of a tacky infomercial for ProActive acne medication or the Thighmaster does it not?   

TampBay

[BorbonFan]

Good analysis - especially about British people not really being the Revolutionary type of people; just look at the Glorious Revolution, completely bloodless!

True. The British, like any Christian people, are not revolutionaries, but can and were deceived to revolt by their bad Christian or outright anti-Christian elites, by means of the written word, which, unlike the spoken one, deceives more easily. A good Christian is not supposed to be revolutionary: "Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves." (Romans 13, 1,2) Jesus Christ Himself subjected Himself, too, to the unjust rule of Pontius Pilate, saying "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above." (John 19,11) 

The revolutionaries have always been lapsed Christians or even outright anti-Christians. Such was the case with the Protestants who, deceived into heresy thanks to the newly invented printing press and, thus, the individually owned and interpreted Bibles, raised themselves against their God-annointed sovereign, King Charles I of England. It was also the case with the Bolsheviks and is now the case with the anti-Christian Australian republican Rupert Murdoch, who got to acquire a third of the British mass-media, thanks to Blair's press law reforms. A Blair who in exchange, regardless of his political blunders, has ever since been strongly supported by Murdoch's media, whether so-called centrist, so-called right-leaning, or outright leftist (as Murdoch himself truly is). His media empire is little by little chipping away at the public trust and respect for the Monarchy, for only when the last bastions of national sovereignty and identity, such as the Monarchy and the Church, are destroyed, only then he and the rest of the globalist plutocrats will finally be able to have complete rule over the entire world.

That's why, unless Blair's press law reforms are undone quickly to ban private media monopolies, you'd better get used to the idea that the days of the British Monarchy are numbered.

God bless!
Borbon Fan

[Taren]

Good analysis - especially about British people not really being the Revolutionary type of people; just look at the Glorious Revolution, completely bloodless!

True. The British, like any Christian people, are not revolutionaries, but can and were deceived to revolt by their bad Christian or outright anti-Christian elites, by means of the written word, which, unlike the spoken one, deceives more easily. A good Christian is not supposed to be revolutionary: "Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves." (Romans 13, 1,2) Jesus Christ Himself subjected Himself, too, to the unjust rule of Pontius Pilate, saying "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above." (John 19,11) 

The revolutionaries have always been lapsed Christians or even outright anti-Christians. Such was the case with the Protestants who, deceived into heresy thanks to the newly invented printing press and, thus, the individually owned and interpreted Bibles, raised themselves against their God-annointed sovereign, King Charles I of England. It was also the case with the Bolsheviks and is now the case with the anti-Christian Australian republican Rupert Murdoch, who got to acquire a third of the British mass-media, thanks to Blair's press law reforms. A Blair who in exchange, regardless of his political blunders, has ever since been strongly supported by Murdoch's media, whether so-called centrist, so-called right-leaning, or outright leftist (as Murdoch himself truly is). His media empire is little by little chipping away at the public trust and respect for the Monarchy, for only when the last bastions of national sovereignty and identity, such as the Monarchy and the Church, are destroyed, only then he and the rest of the globalist plutocrats will finally be able to have complete rule over the entire world.

That's why, unless Blair's press law reforms are undone quickly to ban private media monopolies, you'd better get used to the idea that the days of the British Monarchy are numbered.

God bless!
Borbon Fan

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what Rupert Murdoch has to do with the British monarchy and whether it will continue. Also, you think Murdoch wants to take over the world? 

State Opening of Parliament would probably turn into a neo-political event like it is here in America.  (I always cringe when I watch our State of the Union address.  What was originally a dignified, formal report on the health of the union from the Head of State to Congress has become nothing more than a cheap series of political maneuvering).

Kinda reminds one of a tacky infomercial for ProActive acne medication or the Thighmaster does it not?  

TampBay

To me, more like a bad elementary school play! 

[BorbonFan]

His media empire is little by little chipping away at the public trust and respect for the Monarchy, for only when the last bastions of national sovereignty and identity, such as the Monarchy and the Church, are destroyed, only then he and the rest of the globalist plutocrats will finally be able to have complete rule over the entire world.

That's why, unless Blair's press law reforms are undone quickly to ban private media monopolies, you'd better get used to the idea that the days of the British Monarchy are numbered.

God bless!
Borbon Fan

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what Rupert Murdoch has to do with the British monarchy and whether it will continue. Also, you think Murdoch wants to take over the world? 

Murdoch owns The Times in which the article above mentioned was published. He is known for his republican views, as he is behind the press campaign for a Republic in his home country, Australia. He is a globalist, as are most big industrialists (plutocrats) for whom the globalist tariff-free international commerce makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. He, as all globalist plutocrats, are in favor of a one world government, which will supposedly put an end to all wars, while in reality afford them an unhindered Big Brother-type control over all the nations. This is obviously opposed to the idea of Monarchy and to the Christian Church, which says that Jesus Christ alone rules the world from Heavens and which exhorts us to beware of the anti-christ who will at the end of times rule the entire world for a brief but bloody 3.5 years, during which all the remaining Christians who refuse to worship him as god will be killed.

That's why as long as Murdoch continues to own a third of the British media, unless Blair's press law reforms are undone, his newspapers, magazines, and TV stations will persuade the Britons little by little, just as this article does, to stop trusting and respecting the Monarchy to the point of eventually getting rid of it.

God bless!
Borbon Fan

[Guinastasia]

Good analysis - especially about British people not really being the Revolutionary type of people; just look at the Glorious Revolution, completely bloodless!

True. The British, like any Christian people, are not revolutionaries, but can and were deceived to revolt by their bad Christian or outright anti-Christian elites, by means of the written word, which, unlike the spoken one, deceives more easily. A good Christian is not supposed to be revolutionary: "Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves." (Romans 13, 1,2) Jesus Christ Himself subjected Himself, too, to the unjust rule of Pontius Pilate, saying "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above." (John 19,11) 
God bless!
Borbon Fan

Christians can't be revolutionaries?  I'm sure that would be a surprise to the countless numbers of Irish Catholics who fought for an independent Ireland!  Many of them were priests, even.

What about Rev. Martin Luther King Jr?  He certainly lead a revolution-was he not a Christian?

Hell, Christ himself, (the historical Christ, I'm not getting into a theological debate here!) was a revolutionary-certainly he was a radical. 

[Taren]

Wouldn't the Crusades be counted as pretty revolutionary? Plus, those that fought didn't just happen to be Christian -they fought because they were Christian.

[Robert_Hall]

IMO, the British monarchy is not in the least likely to be "overthrown" as long as it serves a valid constitutional  role in the governemnet and life of Britain. It may, however, become atrophied and redundant through acts of Parlaiment over time. Some would say that point has been reached, but I would dis-agree. Not just yet, imo.

[Prince_Lieven]

Good analysis - especially about British people not really being the Revolutionary type of people; just look at the Glorious Revolution, completely bloodless!

True. The British, like any Christian people, are not revolutionaries, but can and were deceived to revolt by their bad Christian or outright anti-Christian elites, by means of the written word, which, unlike the spoken one, deceives more easily. A good Christian is not supposed to be revolutionary: "Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves." (Romans 13, 1,2) Jesus Christ Himself subjected Himself, too, to the unjust rule of Pontius Pilate, saying "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above." (John 19,11) 
God bless!
Borbon Fan

Christians can't be revolutionaries?  I'm sure that would be a surprise to the countless numbers of Irish Catholics who fought for an independent Ireland!  Many of them were priests, even.

Very true. Of course, not many priests 'fought' but most people who did were pretty devout Catholics.

[ChristineM]

Lets ditch all the nonsense and look at the only two really valid points BourbonFan makes.   The Lord Chancellor did 'massage' the marriage laws to fit Charles marriage with Camilla.   I still believe, if challenged, there is the potential for trouble here.   Prince Charles appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (an organisation he, very vocally, previously deplored) to support his position.

Rupert Murdoch makes no effort to conceal he believes the  Monarchy has long outlived its usefulness..    There is little, in fact probably no, chance its demise would brought about by way of revolution.   There is, however, something much more incidious - apathy.   This is the British Monarchy's greatest enemy.   

Murdoch is a powerful newspaper proprietor, there is no doubt.   He makes money... lots and lots of money.   He knows photographs and stories about the British Royal Family are the surest ways to increase newspaper sales.   Effectively he is making money out a system he allegedly despises.

tsaria

[Robert_Hall]

Well, on the other hand, he owns the Times, which is decidely Tory, and prints the Court Circular. He is politically right wing. Hardly seems the revolutionary to me. Sure his papers make buckets of money, that is the idea, after all, behind printing them. And his tabloids are certainly no better nor worse than others [well, have to think about News of the World...]. Not defending the guy so much- I read both the Times & the Guardian, but just trying to be objective here.