Should Queen Elizabeth be the last British Monarch?

Question

If she is the last monarch, should the titles of all other royal die with her?

Answer 1

Perhaps, the Monarchy is rather pointless nowdays. Although, it is symbolic and how would Charles feel having waited so long to never become King?

Answer 2

If the behaviour of the Royals over the past 30 years displays my National Identity I would rather be anonymous.

The tourism value of the royals is a fallacy, it they were gone we would still get tourists to see Buckingham palace etc,in fact you could let them see a lot more. The historical tourist attractions in Paris get more visitors than we do.

My real gripe about the Royals is that they stop us taking responsibility for ourselves. My dear old mum still believes that Royalty are actually superior people than the rest of us. This is just like religion, we like to think there is someone better, older, more powerful to protect us. We still want some sort of parenting all our lives. That way when things look bad we don't have to act, we can leave it to others.

Answer 3

I think that if Prince Charles is to be the successor to the throne, then maybe it would be better if the monarchy ended after the present Queen. He is not a popular man, in fact in some circles he is viewed as a bit of a joke. Some factions of the British public have never forgiven him for his treatment of the late Princess Diana, whom he treated appallingly. Do we really want our King to be a man that married an innocent, who clearly adored him, just so that he could have an heir & a spare? Indeed, do we want a man who spent his last night as a single man sleeping with his then mistress, now second wife, then continued the affair under the nose of his new wife?
He is clearly a man with no thought in his head other than for himself. Not King material in my opinion.

Answer 4

I understand how a lot of people still have loyalty towards the monarchy and they have played an important part in our history. However they use a huge amount of taxpayers money and do absolutely nothing to earn in. I once heard that the Queen spent over £400,000 in one day at the races. Then they tell us that the minimum wage is enough to live on. However the monarchy will never be abolished as whenever we have a new prime minister sworn in he/she has to swear allegiance to the monarch. It's pathetic how you can still be executed for treason in this country, whilst paedophiles and murderer's get let out of prison after a few years. The monarchy is just another example of how Great Britain isn't so great anymore. Sorry if this offends anyone but it's my point of view.

Answer 5

Yes, it's about time we got rid of these old relics. Charles will never be King anyway. The Queen will never step down unless she is forced to by ill health, as the way she is going now she will live as long as her mother, and Charles might even die before her. Given as males don't live as long as females. If the Queen lives to be 100, Charles would be nearly 80, I don't think they would let him be King at that age. And I really don't think William wants it anyway. He'll be in his forties, settled into family life and I don't think he'll want the intrusion. Harry won't be King as he's Hewitt's son, so I think it will all come to a natural ending.

Answer 6

Queen Empress Elizabeth (The Queen mom) replaced into the most suitable residing human being who - as consort - used the identify. The identify persevered until eventually India and Pakistan grew to grow to be self reliant from the united kingdom at evening on 14/15 August 1947. The identify itself replaced into not formally abandoned until eventually 1948 lower than George VI. George VI persevered to carry the identify King of India for 2 years in the course of the quick Governor-Generalships of Lord Mountbatten and of C. Rajagopalachari until eventually India grew to grow to be a republic on 26 January 1950. George VI remained as King of Pakistan until eventually his lack of existence in 1952 and that i imagine that is amazingly interesting (I by no potential knew this) yet his daughter Elizabeth II replaced into titled Queen of Pakistan until eventually Pakistan grew to grow to be a republic on 23 March 1956.

Answer 7

i would say no .that must have been years ago as this lot are germans anyway
The royal family's official name, or lack thereof, became a problem during World War I, when people began to mutter that Saxe-Coburg-Gotha sounded far too German. King George V and his family needed a new, English-sounding name. After considering every possible name, from Plantagenet to Tudor-Stuart to simply England, the king and his advisors chose the name Windsor

Answer 8

Reading some of the answers I can't help wondering if these people think the world started with them!
This question(with name changes for the Monarch) is as old as the hills and has been discussed on and off for centuries.
The popularity of the Monarchy has ebbed and flowed throughout History. Alas, for the modern day yobs who seem to think that their opinions count for anything, think again! The Monarchy will still be in full flow well after we have all departed the stage!

Answer 9

No i agree with the person who said were are losing our national identity ,what else do we have these days. A lot of people don`t seem to remember that the queen is a very rich women in her own right it`s no ones business how much she spends at the races .The tax payers money is for the upkeep of the royal palaces which would go to the national trust and we would still have to pay for ,and for the royal families trips abroad to represent this country.How many other people of the Queen and Prince Philips age have to do as much as them they have public duties almost every day The Queen has devoted her whole life to this country people should be as loyal to her as she is to us instead of being obsessed with how much tax they pay do the really think they will pay any less if we didn`t have the Monarchy . or will it go on Cherie`s hair do`s or killing people in Iraq or some thing else that's nothing at all to do with us.

Answer 10

No. Charles is a fine man, even post-Diana. Yes, he talks to trees, has fantasies of being a feminine hygiene product, his father Philip thinks he is a 'sissy' but Charles is essentially an intelligent, caring, environmentally aware prince and is a great father to Wills and Harry. He had the courage, conviction and fortitude to marry Camilla in the face of public ridicule and has coped so valiantly even with those big ears, unfortunate nose and the death of his ex-wife, Diana, Princess of Wales.

Charles would be a lovely , mature, fatherly type of King and that is coming from an Australian!

Answer 11

No, I just think maybe Charles should abdicate because he married a divorcee and in the Act of Settlement you can't become a monarch under those circumstances. I mean if they still have to give up their right if they marry Catholic or convert to Catholicism then they should follow that rule to. However, aside from the rule, it is fair to give Charles the throne if he is next in line despite his recent marriage.