Royal Family: Historian Dr Anna Whitelock predicts monarchy will be abolished by 2030 | Royal | News | Daily Express
Dr Anna Whitelock predicted the Queen's successors will be booted out of Buckingham Palace by 2030 because the public do not like the future royalty.
The academic's outlandish claim will shock the world and comes as Her Majesty prepares to mark her 90th birthday.
In a stinging attack on Princes Charles and William, Dr Whitelock said affection for the monarchy is reserved for the Queen herself, meaning her death will spark a constitutional crisis.
She predicted that support for the thousand-year old institution will plummet under King Charles, leading to Britain eventually becoming a republic.
It's not a shock that she says it. This is a person who sat on Sky News during the wedding in 2011 and said that the monarchy is going to be abolished right after the Queen's death. She repeated it during the Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012 on the same channel and said that the monarchy is a bad thing for the UK, and that it will be abolished right after the Queen's death because no one likes the other members. She said the same thing last year when the Queen became Britain's longest-reigning monarch. And she have criticized/moaned about the monarchy's expenses/costs for years, mostly on Sky News, but also on BBC News Channel.
The outlandish claims were today bound to anger many monarchists, who make up three quarters of the general public.
I'm not angry. This person is republican and has the right to say what she thinks, but most British historians/experts do not agree with her.
Dr Whitelock, a reader in early modern history at Royal Holloway university and director of The London Centre for Public History, claimed that important questions about the relevance of the monarchy in modern society have been constrained out of respect for the Queen's long reign.
Have they? Which world do she live in. Has she heard about the organization Republic? Has she read the (Guardian which she writes for), the Independent, the Mirror etc?
She said: “All of those questions about ‘What the hell do we want this kind of unelected family (for)? What does that represent in Britain today?’, all these profound questions have been held in check because of the Queen.”
All of those questions have already been raised by the republicans and several journalists, and by you on television at least 5 times.
She the predicted that within two decades, the British monarchy could be challenged in a way that it never has been before when the Queen is likely to be no longer on the throne.
She said: “I think there’ll be a discussion and a debate in a way that there hasn’t before.
“As the older generation who are generally more wedded to the monarchy die out, the question of the future of the monarchy will become even more pressing, and then potentially more critical voices will come to the fore.”
She added: “I would say by 2030 there will be definite louder clamours for the eradication of the monarchy. I can’t say that there won’t be a monarchy. I would definitely say that the monarchy - its purpose, what it’s about, will be questioned and challenged in a way that it hasn’t been before.
“I don’t think it’s out of the question that the monarchy would be potentially be on its last legs.”
I know that I've said this many times before on others threads, but I actually thinks the British Monarchy is the safest Monarchy in the world, along with the Japanese.
Republicanism in the UK remains among the lowest in the world, with figures rarely exceeding 20% in support of a British republic, some polls have it as low 13%, and consistent 70% support for the Monarchy. Some polls have the support for the monarchy as high as 82%, others at around 70 to 76%, another poll has the support for the monarchy from 66 to 70%.
To abolish the British monarchy will be very difficult.
1: Most polls must show a majority for a republic, this is very very unlikely.
2: Majority in the house of commons for a referendum, this is not going to happen.
3: Majority in the referendum for a republic, this is not going to happen.
4: Changing the country's name, changing the pound, remove the royal name from all state institutions. These are just some of the things that must be changed.
5: All of this is going to cost so much money that even many Republicans will start doubting it, and the vast majority of the population will never vote to replace a constitutional monarchy with a divisive politician or a celebrity etc.
The only thing that can destroy the British Monarchy in the coming years is some very serious scandals or an abdication and this is why:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ession-to-the-throne-5254-10.html#post1851254
But I don't even think that major scandals can destroy/weaken it by 2030.
Support for the monarchy during the last quarter of a century of the Queen’s reign peaked during the Diamond Jubilee year of 2012 with 80 per cent being in favour of Britain remaining a monarchy.
It dipped to 65 per cent at the time of the Prince of Wales’s wedding to the Duchess of Cornwall in 2005 and to 69 per cent in 1993 - the year after the Queen’s “annus horribilis”.
But throughout the remaining years support averaged at 73 per cent of those questioned being in favour of a monarchy, an analysis of Ipsos MORI research showed.
In 2012, 90 per cent of the British public were also said to be satisfied with the way the Queen was doing her job as monarch, while in the wake of Diana, Princess of Wales’s death, this fell to 66 per cent.
Much factual errors here. The Queen's satisfaction numbers was at 74% in February 1996, and at 72% in December 1997. They fell to 66% in March 1998 and was back at 73% in August 1998. They was at 71% in 2000, 82% in 2002, 85% in 2006 and 90% two times in 2012.
Dr Whitelock said the Queen had commanded respect for the duty she has shown during her reign so far.
She said: “Whether you are a monarchist or not, and even fervent republicans, I think, no one is saying whilst the Queen is alive the monarchy should be abolished.
There are several republicans including the organization Republic who says that the monarchy should be abolished today.
“Everybody, given her constancy and given her selflessness, thinks she’s a pretty amazing woman, regardless of where you stand on the monarchy debate.
And yet she is criticized/humiliated for the most ridiculous things, including: When she at the age of 86 didn't go on walkabouts, when the Sun published nazi pictures of her, the EU thing etc.
“After that, I think it’s going to be a free-for-all.”
After that we would have the most remarkable event in British and world history: The death and the funeral of the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, 12 other Countries and head of the Commonwealth. This will be be the first royal state funeral since 1952. And as EIIR (a former member here) wrote in 2012:
When it comes to Charles acceding the throne I feel people miss the point. There is likely to be a huge outpouring of national grief when The Queen passes away. It's important not to underestimate how powerful that will be. Hundreds of thousands of people queued for days in order to file past the Queen Mother's coffin. The level of mourning for the Queen is likely to be a great deal deeper - the Queen is not only a much loved head of state, she's an international icon.
That national grief will, naturally, lead to a great deal of sympathy flowing to the RF generally, and Charles as the next in line.
There will also be a certain fascination in having a new monarch - the vast majority of Britons have only ever known one monarch. The process of new stamps, notes, coins, not to mention a coronation to look forward to. There's also the fact that Charles' reign is likely to be relatively short and William and Catherine will be closer to the throne while also having their own children who will, no doubt, fascinate us all in much the same way their parents have.
This is all a rather long winded way of saying I really don't believe that there will be any significant change to the British monarchy when Charles takes over. I think Charles will be a surprisingly popular King; he'll be at the 'sweet old man' age rather then in middle aged no mans land. It's an unfortunate fact of life nowadays; we see the young as interesting and cool, and the elderly as sweet and wise. It's the in between stage where people just aren't that interested.
This was written by a historian/expert last year and I agree with him. He predicted this 20 years from now:
Charles and Camilla - (if living) will be the respected old monarch and consort.
William and Kate - Will be popular (more than Charles and Camilla), but perhaps not as interesting as their yong and very popular children.
Dr Whitelock admitted the future prospects of “The Firm” were difficult to predict, saying: “At the moment there is pretty great support for the Queen and the monarchy, but the problem is that is about the Queen and not about the monarchy.”
That's wrong. The British constitutional monarchy is more popular than politicians in itself, regardless of the members of the royal family. And William/Kate was very popular with the people/press in 2011, 2012 and 2013. They are still pretty popular and their popularity is likely to rise when they take on more duties and becomes full-time working royals. And Harry has been very popular in 2014/2015.
Buckingham Palace declined to comment.
What the heck should they say.
I think you have really nailed the crux of the matter. Queen Elizabeth is the monarchy of the UK and Commonwealth. There has been no change in most of our lifetimes save those of she and Philip's generation. 
