zlacker

Why is it likely? I've a feeling William will be as fondly regarded as his grandmother. Charles not so much, but he might not be in his post for very many years. Also don't overlook the fact that the British Empire and Commonwealth have basically fallen apart under QEII's watch, but that's still not likely to mean that the country gets rid of the monarchy. Nobody in the country is of the mind that having President Boris as head of state is a better idea than having King William. Not even the Scots.

>>gizajo+(OP)
The British Empire and Commonwealth may have fallen during her watch, but she wasn't the cause - Empire and its relics were increasingly relics of a different age and not something she or anyone could have averted.

My impression is that William benefited from just not being Charles, and some of the sheen rubbing off from his mother. Both of those things only go so far, and as he moves more and more into public responsibilities, he has more and more chances to bungle up. From the high of the early 2010s, the only way for him to trend was down, and its inevitable. William is, what, 40? Charles wasn't quite reviled when he was 40 too - he grew into that role.

Even if the monarchy isn't abolished outright before Louis or a sibling ascends, it's very possible that the United Kingdom in its current state may not. The unified crowns of England and Scotland may exist in title only, if that.

>>gizajo+(OP)
The UK becoming a republic would not automatically mean a divisive popularly elected politician being head of state. They could continue the current parliamentary system while having a neutral figurehead as President (many countries do this: Ireland and India for example).

>>umanwi+35
yeah but what would be the point of doing that? No politician is going to try and bring about a vote to change from a monarch to a ceremonial figurehead. Indeed, given they swear an oath to the monarch, they're probably not even able to bring about that vote. There's no call for it from the electorate, so it wouldn't be a vote-winner and would be a waste of time.

>>valara+72
I think an institution of monarchy fundamentally can’t survive tabloid journalism. Someone like QEII, who preceded it, could have the advantage of adapting to it as it developed. But people like William were targets since childhood. Every youthful indiscretion was covered. They’ve lived their whole life in a fishbowl. You can’t come out of that with the necessary level of mystique and gravitas it takes to be regarded as a divinely enshrined national mascot.

>>gizajo+k7
> Indeed, given they swear an oath to the monarch, they're probably not even able to bring about that vote.

The oath itself wouldn't stop the British Parliament passing an Act of Parliament to abolish the Crown and replace it with some other system. In theory, the monarch could refuse to give their assent to the proposed law but given that would cause a constitutional crisis, in reality the chances are the monarch would assent and the system could be changed.

It seems it would take a republican government in power _or_ huge public demand that the monarchy to be abolished for that to happen which seems unlikely any time soon assuming King Charles III and his successors don't err massively.

>>narava+Kk
But half the tabloids absolutely love the monarchy. I feel like you don't really have a handle on what it's like to live in the UK at all.

>>gizajo+(OP)
> Why is it likely?

At this point it's just a real estate company with an opera front, at some point the brits will wake up and see it for what it is