I don’t see any reason why he’d have a short reign. He’s only 61 and in apparent good health. I think it’s reasonable to assume he’s got another fifteen or twenty years to live. And I see no reason why he’d abdicate - being King is the job he’s been trained for all his life. Charles doesn’t seem likely to be somebody who would force a major politcal crisis and be forced into abdication.
Nor do I see any reason why the British would want to rush into William’s reign. He’s only twenty-eight. Rush him into the throne and you might be stuck with him for fifty years. Maybe he’ll turn out to be a complete dick. Give him another decade or so of training as the heir.
And the Queen Mum lived to 101 despite being a virtual alcoholic, being a widow for half a century and having had multiple hip replacements. The Queen is in much better shape than her mother was at the same age.
The test will really be how she fares after Philip dies, but another decade is well within the realm of possibility.
To a large extension, yes. A bad monarch devalues the monarchy and often leads to “troubles” (cf. Fernando VII; the 18th century Hapsburgs…) whereas a good one strengthens it (there are people who claim that Juan Carlos I organized the coup on Feb 23 1981 in order to be able to stop it; others who claim they don’t think he’s smart enough for that but his wife could be; in any case, it definitely strengthened the whole political system and even got politicians to start talking about “Spain” instead of “this country” again).
You don’t think that a good President makes the political system stronger than a bad one? I don’t think Nixon did a lot to make the American political system look good, or the American people trust its rulers.
I think it’s a shameful waste of taxpayers’ money, but then, I despise the monarchy as an institution, and I don’t have much time for any of the actual individuals either.
I suppose the Queen isn’t as much of an obnoxious twat as some of the others. I’d be a very happy Brit if they were abolished tomorrow.
Let’s not forget, however, that the Queen and the various Crown-related properties, assorted tourist tat, etc bring in a HUGE amount of tourist money to the UK (London mostly, admittedly). Take away the monarchy and the value of all that stuff drops dramatically.
Well, Bohemian Rhapsody is a bit overplayed but it’s a classic. Somebody to Love is one of my favorites. No one can sing them like Freddie Mercury though.
Hmm, not sure about the actual economics of that. Not sure at all. And if they are just a tourist brand, then can we have a full and sensible look at whether they do deserve so much money?
Funnily enough, lots of people traipse along as tourists to visit Versailles or wherever without any mad thought of meeting some extant royal personage. Really, if I suddenly decided to visit Belgium, The Netherlands, Sweden, or lots of other places, I wouldn’t be going there with the wish to find whatever monarch. I mean does the Italian tourist industry suffer because they don’t have a Caesar any more? Do visitors go there and then go home all sad and disappointed?
And I suppose it must be a sad and terrible thing for the U.S.A. to have no visitors and no tourists because there is not a queen to look at. Yeah, I’m sure it suffers a lot from this lack.
But how much does she cost us? It’s not really much of an issue here either way.
Yes, it costs money to have a Governor General. But Canada has to have a head of state; if it’s not the Governor General, it’d be an elected President of something, and the same functions would have to be performed at, in all likelihood, at least the same cost.
I guess the trick will be to elect a head of state, but ensure that anyone running for the job will not want to live in Canada – sort of like that Ignatieff fellow, only he returned after all.
