British monarchy could be gone in two generations, says novelist Mantel -- Reuters

[Wednesdays]

LONDON (Reuters) - The British royals, who trace their history back more than 1,000 years, could be gone within two generations, writer Hilary Mantel said in an interview published on Saturday.

(snip)

But when asked how long the monarchy had left, Mantel told The Times that her "back of the envelope" calculation was just two generations.

"It’s very hard to understand the thinking behind the monarchy in the modern world when people are just seen as celebrities," she said.

If her view turns out to be correct, Elizabeth's great-grandson, Prince George, 8, who is third in line to the throne after his grandfather Charles, 72, and father Prince William, 39, would not become king.

More:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/british-monarchy-could-be-gone-in-two-generations-says-novelist-mantel/ar-AAOl6de


(Personally, I think they're dreaming. But it would be nice.)

[jimfields33]

1. I think it can survive if they skip Charles and go immediately to

Kate and William. They are probably the best royals in the history. Beautiful, gracious, exceptional human beings with a wonderful family.

[Demsrule86]

3. I don't understand why anyone would want a king or queen...it costs a fortune.

[jimfields33]

4. Born into it would make it more doable.

England actually would fall to a recession or worse if they got rid of the royals. They bring in big bucks with tourists.

[Mosby]

73. I think its probably the opposite

Think about how much money they could make by turning Balmoral, Kensington, Windsor, and the rest of those giant homes into hotels and BnBs. They already are doing that with some super old castles like May.

[Baltimike]

94. They generate more money than they cost

but I wouldn't want a monarch for me and mine. The Brits get to have their choice.

[brush]

11. Maybe, but there are rumors William had an affair.

[FakeNoose]

49. Maybe you're thinking of Andrew, the youngest brother of Charles?

He's the one with all the rumors are swirling about.

[brush]

50. It's a rumor. It may or may not be true but it was about William.

It's on google.

[xmas74]

53. No, William

Supposedly had an affair while Kate was pregnant with a family friend. Also, Harry knew and that's one if the reasons for their falling out.

That's one of the big rumors.

[helpisontheway]

83. Like father..like son..nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. I believe it was behind this

https://www.thesun.ie/news/3899626/kate-middleton-fall-out-best-friend-william-phase-out/

Hard to know for sure, since I don't follow the media that talks about that kind of stuff, and was rather playing catch-up from news satire instead. As far as I can tell major publications refrained from stating it directly to avoid trouble; you can try to make sense of this if you want: https://www.royalfoibles.com/prince-williams-banished-mistress/

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. If they were to go with that, that'd be admitting the hereditary principle is bunk

which opens the door to "let's choose the best from everyone*", not just "let's choose the best from people who are somewhat related to the present head of state".

"Beatuiful" is the worst qualification of all. I'm not sure either of them is that exceptional. They do seem pretty gracious, but I'm not sure many people get such opportunities to be gracious.

*And "everyone" would presumably be different for each country for whom Elizabeth is head of state.

[ARandomPerson]

26. Work-shy William is hardly the savior of the monarchy.

The whole institution is stupid.

[jrthin]

27. I am still shocked that grown people are into kings and queens.

But, whatever.

[Boomerproud]

2. Celebrities is all they are. It ended up costing Diana her life.

Their stupid costume parties are meaningless.

[Treefrog]

18. Diana lost her life because she wasn't wearing a seatbelt in a car driven by a drunk driver.

Not to mention that she had spurned her RPOs.

[jimfields33]

35. + 1,000,000

[StarfishSaver]

41. Exactly

[CTyankee]

65. I felt sorry for her. She seemed so limited in her ability to cope or even to understand what was

happening to her. I think she never had a chance to grow up and be on her own, almost like she was bred like a prize horse just for one purpose...

[malaise]

5. The sooner the better

We either want democracies or monarchies - the two cannot co-exist.

I detest every royal everywhere on the planet

[carpetbagger]

10. I think, though, with bitter experience ...

Would we be better off with a figurehead as head of state? Would we tend to elect technocrats, rather than Reagan-Trump celebrities? I don't have a ready answer, but I do struggle with what I'm increasingly seeing as a theory that gains empirical support every day that people have a follow-the-strongman impulse that needs some outlet valve. Kind of how sports, at best, help to replace warfare.

[malaise]

13. I disagree big time

and where I live we have that figurehead.

[DBoon]

16. The USA *does* have a king

His name is Elvis

...sorry couldn't resist...

[jrthin]

28. Yes!!!!!!!! Wish I could add more

Exclamations because I passionately agree with your comment. I loathe monarchies.

[jimfields33]

36. I don't think we in the United States should have a say at all.

[malaise]

37. Well I'm not in the United States

and since there is an effin' Governor-General here, I can say what I want.
I detest all monarchies - every single one of them

[jimfields33]

46. Cool.

[LanternWaste]

44. Seems you just had your say...

But we all of us do have opinions, yes? Opinions we may even deign to express on a message board.


Or do you believe opinions should be limited by imaginary lines on a map?

[jimfields33]

47. Awesome!!!!!

[treestar]

75. We don't

But we will have opinions

[carpetbagger]

7. Probably one more scandal

If they live like boring, low key royalty, they survive. England is a kingdom in its heart, republicanism isn't driving the breakup movements of the other UK nations. Republican sentiment seems to be low in places like Sweden and the Netherlands, where the royal families keep a low profile. If they have another royal sibling go rogue like Edward VIII, Andrew, Harry (Margaret didn't cross the meaningful lines) they're done. If not, the ties to Elizabeth and Diana sustain the monarchy until William's kids come of age and have their shot at public favour.

[brush]

8. After how they screwed up the Harry and Megan thing...

No wonder. The veil came off the racism. You'd think they'd be above that, even the minor ones.

[Me.]

12. That Was Actually Princess Michael Of Kent

and quite a hideous woman, who is not in favor with people.

[Treefrog]

19. The only Royal of note who has shown racism is Harry.

Numerous incidents. The Nazi uniform, the “Paki” comment, numerous others easily found on the Google machine.

[brush]

20. You forgot about the Blackamoor incident.

[Treefrog]

21. And I said "the only Royal of note."

I doubt most ever even heard of her before that ridiculous stunt.

[brush]

31. Wasn't there also something in the Oprah interview...

about wonderings of Baby Archie's complexion?

[Baltimike]

63. As a person in a biracial family, that is commonplace, and NOT racist at all

Harry himself is said to have mused that he didn't want his kids to be as pasty white as him.

Everyone muses about what babies are gong to look like.

[Arazi]

70. Yes, normal in a biracial family but not in a lily white family with outright racists

Philip was an outright racist.

I'm sure there are others in the royal family as well who just never got caught on a microphone.

Speculation from racists on how dark skinned a new family member will be, is racist. Harry and Megan know who was talking about it and pretty sure they know it wasn't just fun musing

[Baltimike]

71. Princess Michael of Kent is an outright racist, but Harry outranks her

and I have no personal knowledge of Philip being an outright racist, and certainly don't want to cast aspersions on someone who can't defend himself anymore. But I would suspect, were he an outright racist, Megan Markle would not have been included as she was.

And she was

[Arazi]

72. Philip was a notorious racist. I'm not a royals watcher and even I know it

Amongst dozens and dozens of Google links if you'd like to have "firsthand" knowledge, here's the first one. There are thousands to choose from

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/8/13/the-priceless-racism-of-the-duke-of-edinburgh

[Baltimike]

93. Does that innoculate MM from being a compulsive liar?

Because had Philip, always known to be inappropriate to be sure, REALLY had a problem with MM, she never would have been accepted into the family he headed in the first place.

She lied her ever loving ass off, and tried to claim Diana's story as her own. It failed miserably, and I, for one, really would be happy to see the monarchy go away, if only to protect us from more bullshit from the Sussex squad. Noun. Verb. Princess Diana.

and then the LIES....so many LIES.

[jimfields33]

25. Some dumb cousin. I refuse to blame everyone when it's one person

[Me.]

9. It May Be Possible For Them To Survive But Charles Would Have To Be Skipped over

he has a reputation as a spoiled brat and is having a bit of a scandal concerning one of his aides and Charle's love of billionaires. Also he gains no favor as it has been recently revealed that it was he who insisted that Diana lose her HRH title. Apparently the Queen was fine with her keeping it but Charles would have his pound of flesh even though Diana's family is far more truly royal than his. Also Andrew is in a heap of trouble with his Epstein connection and a lawsuit that claims that he slept with an underage girl.

[DBoon]

14. Does this mean the tabloids go out of business?

One can always hope.

[jrthin]

29. That would certainly be a win-win.

[appalachiablue]

15. What's the forecast for the US? The republic survives OR

the return of titled nobles and aristos- based on wealth- in a couple of generations.

[PortTack]

17. "Novelist says" I will wait.

[spike jones]

23. Someone is always next in line, right? It's not like they have an election.

[link:https://www.britroyals.com/royaltree.asp|

[BannonsLiver]

24. I wonder how many times that's been said over the last 1,000 years.

[DavidDvorkin]

30. When they said "It's over" in 1649, it was actually true.

[BannonsLiver]

95. Yes, they separated Charles I from his head.

Then 11 years later the monarchy was brought back and Cromwell’s corpse was subjected to a posthumous execution with his head displayed in London.

[DavidDvorkin]

97. The Commonwealth failed to set up a viable system of succession

Bringing back the monarchy was the lesser of two evils, the other one being the likelihood of renewed civil war. But the monarchy that was brought back was not the same as the one that ended with Charles I's execution.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

32. Calling dibs on the crown jewels now

[StarfishSaver]

42. I was just thinking the same thing

But this time a novelist said it, so ...

[JI7]

33. I think after Elizabeth people will start to lose interest.

[Scrivener7]

34. Why would Hillary Mantel be considered someone who would know this?

I like her books, but she has no inside track on this.

[Bucky]

55. Thank you

This thread is like watching a debate between fans of Dave Matthews and Hootie and the Blowfish.

[kcr]

62. Who does, though?

Royalty are just glorified celebrities. Her opinion and insights matter just about as much as anyone else's.

[Scrivener7]

68. Yes, but why is her totally unsubstantiated opinion on a random topic newsworthy?

If Phillipa Gregory came out tomorrow and said all cars would be solar powered by 2030, I wouldn't find that newsworthy either.

Also, she says she made a "back of the envelope calculation." There is no calculation. This is a random opinion.

Stupid question, stupid answer, stupidly made into a stupid news story.

[luv2fly]

38. But, but...

What will tv viewers of the future binge on if there are no royals?

[Emrys]

39. Once Liz dies, all bets are off.

I don't know about the monarchy disappearing altogether (though I'd support that), but within just one generation I suspect it will be severely downsized to the level of some Continental royal families who have far less privilege and deference shown to them.

The younger generations of royals may even prefer that as a way of life.

[Voltaire2]

40. Racist spiteful useless gits.

Take their fucking castles away and tell them to go get a job.

[jalan48]

43. Sweet

[ananda]

45. That's still not soon enough for me.

They have moved way past their sell-by date.

[Xolodno]

48. Not happening.

I read somewhere that the monarchy actually serves as an unbiased consultant, not to just the British government, but others as well. And you still have other "quiet" monarchies around Europe (Spain, Norway, Andorra, etc.), powerless, but provide a long term balanced insight.

And most think of monarchies like emperors (Russia, Austria, etc.). They aren't and never had that much sway to begin with, and the emperors are long since gone, some even still fighting who is the rightful heir (dreams of delusion, no way in hell Russia, etc. would bring back that failed system).

[Iggo]

51. Oh, no!

[Captain Zero]

52. Doesn't seem to be a tough gig to me, but none of them are ever up to it.

really, wtf?

[Bucky]

54. Tying a nation's cohesion to the decorum of one family is weird

The Windsors seem to be doing okay overall. The current argument seems to be they're there and dependable in case everything else goes to shit, plus they seem to be good for the economy.

A bit of a step down from the divine right of kings debates of the Stuart dynasty. The Windsors are basically the Bare Naked Ladies of royalty. They grove okay and they kinda make sense of you don't think about it too much.

[bluecollar2]

56. As an Englishman

I hope that doesn't happen.

Republicanism doesn't work for us. We tried it and failed miserably.

A Constitutional Monarchy works for us.

[Scrivener7]

57. Oooh yes. Cromwell was not a good influence for you guys.

[bluecollar2]

64. Those that forget the past

Are doomed to repeat it.

[Scrivener7]

69. And we of Irish descent would prefer that you not do that Cromwell thing again, please.

[bluecollar2]

78. I think it's fair to say that the Irish had a legitimate

Grievance.

No question that the Irish have a place in the long line of grievants against my country.

[Hortensis]

60. As an American, I'm surprised at non-Brit Americans who have real feelings about this.

Or I'd prefer to be at least.

It's not exactly like Sawdi Arabia's absolute monarchy, after all, with its current increases in human rights abuses over what were already appalling by our standards. Yet how many all worked up about the British royals go on about the Sawdi monarchy? And with its destabilizing effects on the whole planet, we do have at least that basis for claiming we have an interest.

Keep or legislate to the past, as British voters choose.

[bluecollar2]

66. It is difficult to explain...

The British monarchy serves a unique role for us.

[Hortensis]

67. :) Not for me. Britain itself does, absolutely! They're our longest,

closest ally, ever since they stopped being our new democracy's first and most dangerous enemy.

Britain's a "parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy." But it's only the monarchy Brits consider disposing of as long obsolete, even though both dear and occasionally embarrassing and offensively expensive. The parliamentary democracy part, what I care about, is solid.

I'd miss the royal wedding spectacles, most of which I've tuned in to see part of, but that's about as far as it goes for me. I have no yearning for royalty and also no revulsion for royalty without power.

[bluecollar2]

80. Offensively expensive?

I'd submit the Monarchy provides significant revenue to the British treasury.

[Hortensis]

85. Now, see how much attention I pay? The versions that've gotten

through to me are complaints about the enormous wealth that accrues to the royal family. How nice that class resentments and victimhood syndromes don't play much of a role in this. Wish we could say the same here.

[bluecollar2]

86. I'm sure experts have spent hours

Researching the costs and rewards.

The Royals still have a personal train but the yacht has been retired. In the end the return may not offset the expense but the return is intangible I think.

[Hortensis]

90. A personal train. The things you learn.

I'm assuming they'd have to pay for it, and without royal duties to perform...?

I just looked and didn't see any here, but people can and do own private train cars that can be hooked up to Amtrak and others, and I saw suggestion that the numbers may increase. So maybe the royals would just choose to keep a private car.

As you say, though, for now the returns are intangible but real.

[bluecollar2]

92. The Royal carriages are available

To transport the family when needed...

PBS had a couple of programs on it.

[Silent3]

77. Hasn't the monarchy been relegated to figurehead status, however?

It's hard to see how its absence would much change how your government has functioned over the last century.

[bluecollar2]

79. The British Monarchy has nothing to do with governance.

The Magna Carta defined governance. Since then Britain has had plenty of opportunity to have incompetent heads of state.

[Silent3]

82. If you agree the monarchy has little to do with governance, what do you fear would happen...

...if the monarchy went away? What role in the stability of government do you feel it plays, other than fear of what happened under Cromwell, which doesn't at all seem like a "slippery slope" you would face now if the monarchy were phased out in today's world.

[bluecollar2]

84. It has nothing to do with the "stability of government"

And everything to do with the stability of the society. Since you aren't British it is completely understandable that you pose the question

[Silent3]

87. I'm curious then what you feel is the stabilizing power the monarchy provides

From an outside perspective, that's hard to see, given how the monarchy seems to have descended into little more than tabloid fodder of late.

I suppose I can understand the attachment to a sense of tradition many might have regarding royalty, but that's not quite enough to understand a relationship to societal stability.

[bluecollar2]

89. The importance of tradition is a fundamental part of our national psyche

When we faced Hitler alone...between September 1939 and December 1941, tradition sustained us.

Whether you like or understand it or not...it's what makes a lot of us tick.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

58. Celebrating the English Monarchy is like celebrating the Confederacy

for their war to maintain their right to own slaves in the US. The end of this stupidity that has caused so much misery to the world can't come too soon.

Hopefully, the monuments honoring this historically genocidal institution will be torn down as well.

[tavernier]

59. Queen gone? No way!!

Freddie lives!
🕺👨🏻🕺

[Earth-shine]

74. May I live long enough to see it.

I'll probably have to settle for monarchy mildly diminished in one generation.

[brooklynite]

76. What does J.K. Rowling think?

If we're going to listen to the opinion of novelists, might as well pick one the audience has heard of.

[GoneOffShore]

88. Mantel is a far more noted writer. Two Booker Prizes.

And if you watched Wolf Hall, that was a dramatization of part of her Thomas Cromwell trilogy.

[brooklynite]

91. I didn't and I'm still not seeing any basis for opining on the future of the Monarchy....

…other than everyone’s free to have an opinion.

[NurseJackie]

96. I hope Prince George does become king.

I like them. Charles, not so much... but I admire Diana's children.