The Monarchy after Elizabeth II

[selrahc4]

Originally Posted by Frothy

Andrew fought fiercely against any attempt to strip the Princesses of York of their titles

Frothy, in what way did he fight, and when did the Queen attempt to strip those titles? The monarch is the only one with the power to attempt this, right?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Next Star

the fact is that some people have rallied against the monarchy wanting an republic so the people can elect their leader.

Who, there has been nothing in our press about it, apart from some (not all) at the one of the fringe newspapers.

Suveries have been taking about rather would the people of Britain chose William over Charles as king some said yes.

I expect very many more said no.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by selrahc4

Frothy, in what way did he fight, and when did the Queen attempt to strip those titles? The monarch is the only one with the power to attempt this, right?

There were reports of a royal 'thinktank' including Prince Philip and Prince Charles which recommended scaling down the monarchy and stripping the HRH from the children of the younger sons of the monarch. It was also reported that Andrew was firmly set against his daughters losing their titles.

[corazon]

the surveys don't are serius, not in the uk and the rest of the world.
charles don't is a very popular prince, i see in royal a to z n E! than many people want william become in king before elizabeth but the law is the law.
for said exactly wath want yhe british peeople we need to do a ''censo'' this is ''ask a person for person'' and this is a crazy.
the heir of the throne is charles and william next to him, but if charles become in king before elizabeth's death we can know exactly.
many things can happend, he can die etc etc, the actual line is as is but we only can know when happend, now all is speculation

[Elspeth]

Perhaps someone could post a link to some of these surveys which are being claimed to show that the British people want William to succeed as king in his father's lifetime. So far we're just getting hearsay.

[corazon]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Perhaps someone could post a link to some of these surveys which are being claimed to show that the British people want William to succeed as king in his father's lifetime. So far we're just getting hearsay.

i can posted many of them, some is in spanish

Los sondeos dicen que los ingleses prefieren de rey a Guillermo
10-4-2005
http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/1565...RMO/ENCUESTAS/

¿Podrá el amor convencer a los británicos?
http://www.sitiosespana.com/notas/abril-2005/amor.htm

all the articles in spanish are very similar, I try to find the last article in THE TIMES

Skip Prince for King William, women say
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...587149,00.html

Inglaterra: Sólo 26% quiere a Carlos
http://lacuarta.cl/diario/2005/04/28...ARABOLICA.html

Los británicos siguen prefiriendo a Guillermo como futuro Rey
http://www.elcomerciodigital.com/pg0...guillermo.html
april 2006
William first choice for monarch
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?...&id=2137382005
23rd September 2006

[Sister Morphine]

Originally Posted by ysbel

There were reports of a royal 'thinktank' including Prince Philip and Prince Charles which recommended scaling down the monarchy and stripping the HRH from the children of the younger sons of the monarch. It was also reported that Andrew was firmly set against his daughters losing their titles.

I think it had something to do with styling Andrew's daughters as the children of a non-royal Duke. So they would have the title Lady, as opposed to HRH Princess *fill in name* of York.

[chrissy57]

From what I have understood the biggest opponent to any change in the current order of succession is Prince William himself who, I believe but can't find the links now as it was a few years ago, has said that he won't become king in his father's lifetime.

Frankly anyone who suggests this should have their head examined for asking a young man who clearly loves, respects and adores his father, to take his father's place in the line of succession - and for what reason - a failed marriage to a pretty girl.

Anne is also reported as opposing cognatic primogeniture as it affects her position in the line of succession and that of her children - so a simple change in the law wouldn't necessarily be possible and have the support of the people most affected.

Charles will be king, and in my opinion, a fine king.

He will be crowned in a traditional ceremony with maybe some minor changes - such as what he wears - but he won't go against the central ceremony that has been in place for over 900 years.

He may get his way over the title Defender of the Faith and have it changed to Defender of Faith although all reports seem to suggest that that won't happen - he put out an idea and it didn't get a really positive response - this idea was mentioned 12 years ago and hasn't really been suggested by him since due to the reaction then.

As for scaling back the RF in titles - those of his mother's generation I doubt he would worry about - by the time he becomes king his sister will be eligible for the old age pension so she could cut back her operations and do very little - hardly likely and an idea he wouldn't support.

His brothers will continue doing royal duties and his sons will also begin to take on those duties - replacing the Gloucesters and Kents.

As for his nephew and nieces - I don't see any of them doing royal duties at all - which is why I suspect Charles might say - do full time royal duties or give up the HRH to Beatrice and Eugenie.

Personally I don't see William becoming king until his late 50s as Charles is in very good health and is only 58 - I would expect him to live at least as long as his father - who will be 86 this year. That would make William 53 on accession but Charles could live even longer, like his grandmother and other relatives. The main reason he has more recent male ancestors who died relatively young is that they were heavy smokers but he isn't. Both his grandfathers abused their bodies, his great-grandfathers lived longer - George V aged 70 (and smoked heavily), William of Greece into his 70s and assassinated so we don't know - Louis of Battenburg - also into his late 60s but a smoker and as for the Earl of Strathmore I simply don't know.

With modern medicine he may live into his 90s and be on the throne for 25 years leaving William in his late 50s on accession - will there be calls to pass over Willima in that case.

Back in the 70s, when Charles was the age that William is now there were many calls for the Queen to step down in favour of her young and very popular son - who knows what the future holds for William - in 20 years he may be despised for something he has done.

Australia will possibly be a republic even before the present Queen's reign ends - remember in 1999 the vote was 45% in favour and 55% against and that was mainly due to the way of choosing our own president. We have a federal election this year - and the pro-republican Labor Party currently leads the opinion polls. They have stated that if they win they will have a plebiscite (not a binding referendum where the wording or the question put to the people MUST be in the form to go into the Constitution) which simply asks if Australians won't to be a Republic. That question would get a 70% or so Yes vote and then they would have to get a form of choice up that the majority of people in a majority of states agrees to - direct election will do it. Although we have had a change in opposition leader recently I haven't heard that this has been removed from the Labor Party's agenda. If they do put a vote to the people that includes direct election I expect it to get overwhelming support and we could be a republic within two to three years. Personally my vote will be NO but...

[afro1920]

Originally Posted by Frothy

Again, I do not agree. There is no need or duty to "produce an heir" - there will already be an heir, be it a sister, brother, cousin or whatever. And I think in the modern world most young mothers work too, so the "career" of head of state-ship should no more prevent a sua juris Princess of Wales than it prevented HRH the Duchess of Edinburgh having plenty of princelings...

The man will have plenty of compensations; the love of his wife, the prestige of the inevitable princedom, raising the next monarch, oh, and a life of eternal comfort and luxury. He can have his own charitable "career" as much as he wishes. Ought we to insult young women in order to flatter the egos of men? I think not... I will welcome the reform when it, in my view inevitably, comes in a few years.

Well said, Frothy. My thoughts exactly. In fact, I have always wished that more titles would allow for female inheritance than there are presently. Why shouldn't a woman be a duchess in her own right and pass it to her daughter? Right now there very few peeresses in their own right. How fair is that? Why give women the right to vote or any other rights if not this one?

[Avareenah]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

Australia will possibly be a republic even before the present Queen's reign ends - remember in 1999 the vote was 45% in favour and 55% against and that was mainly due to the way of choosing our own president. We have a federal election this year - and the pro-republican Labor Party currently leads the opinion polls. They have stated that if they win they will have a plebiscite (not a binding referendum where the wording or the question put to the people MUST be in the form to go into the Constitution) which simply asks if Australians won't to be a Republic. That question would get a 70% or so Yes vote and then they would have to get a form of choice up that the majority of people in a majority of states agrees to - direct election will do it. Although we have had a change in opposition leader recently I haven't heard that this has been removed from the Labor Party's agenda. If they do put a vote to the people that includes direct election I expect it to get overwhelming support and we could be a republic within two to three years. Personally my vote will be NO but...

The general consensus seems to be that Australia will not become a republic during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. Have you heard a vocal Australian republican of late?

Leader of the republican movement during the 1999 referendum and now Labour Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, appeared on Australian T.V. only this week and admitted there was no real interest in republicanism at this time, no doubt due to the respect and admiration the majority of Australians have for the Queen - even those who are anti-monarchy.

No doubt, the subject will rear its head again when Charles succeeds.

[Frothy]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

Anne is also reported as opposing cognatic primogeniture as it affects her position in the line of succession and that of her children - so a simple change in the law wouldn't necessarily be possible and have the support of the people most affected.

Yes, it would - you just don't make the law retrospective. That way everybody keeps their positions, but William's first child is heir apparent whether boy or girl.

Anne, Andrew et al are all unaffected.

One of the strongest arguments for cognatic primogeniture is that by bringing it in now you don't affect any existing arrangements.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by corazon

William first choice for monarch
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?...&id=2137382005
23rd September 2006

Come on, in this "poll" conducted by a TV-show Australians could vote for Crown princess Mary of Denmark to become next souverain of Australia.... that is hardly saying that the British citizens want William...

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Claire

He will also narrow down the family. I expect the first in the firing line will be the Kents, Glouchester, Wessexs and Princess Alexander. It will simply be explained that they are not longer necessary and will be shortly dismissed.

Goodness, you make Charles sound like a Plantagenet! I shudder to think of the consequences if they don't go quietly.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by corazon

Skip Prince for King William, women say
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...587149,00.html

They only asked 716 people.

[Next Star]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Who, there has been nothing in our press about it, apart from some (not all) at the one of the fringe newspapers.

I expect very many more said no.

Just because the people wanting to abolished the monarchy has not been known publicy does not mean it is not happening and by way you do not all wants going on Britain and as well as the British people wanting William to succeed his grandmother and skip Charles as king.

[Warren]

This thread is for a serious discussion of the Monarchy post-Elizabeth II.
The moment the Queen ceases to reign, Charles becomes King. That is our starting point.
We can leave the "William displacing his father" debate for somewhere else.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums moderator

[Bella]

Only time will tell what happens. I'm sure back before WWI if you asked members of Europe's royal families (not to mention their "subjects") what the future held, never in a million years would they have guessed their fate. The world changes. People's perspectives change. What's important to one generation is not necessarily important to the next. Or the next after that. The Republican voice throughout the world is getting stronger and louder with every passing year. Does this mean monarchy (at least British) will be completely abolished? I doubt it. Does it mean there are probably very huge changes in store? Absolutely. QEII has reigned for a very long time. People who are middle-aged now weren't even born when she was crowned. It's a different world and it will be a different reign for Charles. But I believe he is the man to cross that threshold. He's open-minded and understands the importance of moving aside some of the old elitist traditions in favor of a more inclusive "people-friendly" monarchy, and that is exactly what is needed if the British monarchy is to continue. He is setting the stage for William, who I believe will have a far longer reign than his father. Perhaps by that time Canada, Australia and the rest will no longer be considered part of the Commonwealth, but I believe there will still be a descendant of QV sitting upon the British throne, albeit more-than-likely a smaller one.

[selrahc4]

Originally Posted by ysbel

There were reports of a royal 'thinktank' including Prince Philip and Prince Charles which recommended scaling down the monarchy and stripping the HRH from the children of the younger sons of the monarch. It was also reported that Andrew was firmly set against his daughters losing their titles.

Thanks. I had also read about that rumor. Andrew being firmily set against a recommendation does sound more realistic that fiercely fighting against an attempt.

[StoneCold]

No changes will be made to the Monarchy, not a single one, mark my words!

[Frothy]

Tell that to Lady Louise!