The Monarchy after Elizabeth II

[selrahc4]

I just want to ask a question. For the purposes of this discussion thread are we to assume that the terms "Monarchy" and "Royal Family" are to be basically treated as equal? One could argue that dispensing with some HRH styles does not change the Monarchy at all, since the Monarch's position and function in government and law would not be affected by that.

[BeatrixFan]

My tuppence for what it's worth;

Smaller royal family with reduced titles for some

This will happen quite naturally. The Kent branch will die out as will the Gloucesters. That leaves you with the Queen and her children and their children which is what most people who want a smaller Royal Family are after. In time, we'll lose the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh and I have a feeling that Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie will follow Princess Anne's example with any kids they may have which would leave us with the King and Queen, the Prince and Princess of Wales and the York Princesses. Much smaller.

Cognatic primogeniture

Once the Catholic Ban goes, this will follow IMO.

Removal of the monarch as Head of the Church (separation btw Church and State)

Removal of the monarch no - removal of the church yes. It's a dead cert. The fury over gay adoption these past few days has cemented the death of the Church of England. I imagine the Anglican Church would still exist but it would be one denomination among many off-shoots when the Church of England collapses. The King will become Defender of Faiths and the Supreme Head of the Church of England will be no more.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by selrahc4

For the purposes of this discussion thread are we to assume that the terms "Monarchy" and "Royal Family" are to be basically treated as equal?

We were after a short title for a broad subject.

[Bella]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

My tuppence for what it's worth;

Smaller royal family with reduced titles for some

. . . I have a feeling that Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie will follow Princess Anne's example with any kids they may have . . .

I don't believe Pss Beatrice & Eugenie's children would be titled anyway as they would be the children of daughters. Just as Pss Anne's children are not titled. So basically the BRF would be quite small just by the natural scheme of things: Charles and Camilla, P Wm & family, P H & family. Very small.

[BeatrixFan]

True. My mistake. But then again, remember that the RF will grow again later when the new Prince and Princess of Wales have children and when Prince Harry gets married and has children. That's how our monarchy works. Sometimes there's alot of them, sometimes there's not so many.

[ysbel]

Traditionally princes handed down their royal status to their children whereas the princesses did not. It was assumed in earlier times that the princesses would marry foreign princes and their children would assume their royal status from their (foreign royal) father.

My assumption would be that the HRH status was traditionally used to denote succession to the crown and children of daughters who married into foreign royal families would be ineligible to assume a throne inherited from their mother to avoid a conflict of interest between two monarchies.

Now as Elspeth mentioned, since dynastic marriages are no longer the norm, the function of the HRH status in today's modern royal family could be redefined to mean something totally different.

[Frothy]

Selrah,

If the reports in the papers were to be believed Andrew did fight fiercely against it. He was reported to have said that the plans were "just spiteful" and argued vociferously against his brother on the matter. I recall them saying that Charles felt strongly in favour of these reforms but that Andrew's reaction was so negative it was shelved.

So we are talking major arguments, not just "I object, Mummy" if these reports are to be given credit.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Frothy

Selrah,

If the reports in the papers were to be believed Andrew did fight fiercely against it. He was reported to have said that the plans were "just spiteful" and argued vociferously against his brother on the matter. I recall them saying that Charles felt strongly in favour of these reforms but that Andrew's reaction was so negative it was shelved.

So we are talking major arguments, not just "I object, Mummy" if these reports are to be given credit.

I think selrah was referring to the fact that the Queen as monarch didn't institute any action taking away Beatrice's and Eugenie's titles. Of course, it would have been silly for Andrew to fight against an action of the Queen because if the Queen had wanted to take away the princesses HRH, she could have easily done by virtue of her position as monarch and Andrew would have been relatively powerless.

I think it may have been a major argument though, because we don't know what the Queen's private reaction to the recommendation was. If she was in any way positive to the recommendation, then I can imagine Andrew's reaction.

But I can't see Andrew openly defying the Queen once she's made her wishes known and issued a statement.

[Frothy]

Of course not, and saying "Prince Andrew fought fiercely against this" does not in any way imply that the Queen had issued a statement and then Andrew had rebelled.

He did his fighting before the battle was lost! After the Queen had exercised her powers it would have been too late!

In practical terms, I don't see how this change could be made without Andrew's consent. Not worth opening the can of worms. I am sure the limiting of the HRH is coming but doubt it will be made retroactive, except possibly to apply to Louise just to formalise what has in practise already happened to her.

The difference between Andrew's fight and Edward's acceptance is, I think, rather dramatically reflected in how their respective daughters are styled.

[selrahc4]

Ysbel and Frothy,
Yes, It was the word "attempt" (which I took as meaning action had been taken) I was wondering about in the orginal post. When it was referred to as a "recommendation" (which I took as an idea being mooted) it made more sense.

[Bella]

Originally Posted by Frothy

Of course not, and saying "Prince Andrew fought fiercely against this" does not in any way imply that the Queen had issued a statement and then Andrew had rebelled.

He did his fighting before the battle was lost! After the Queen had exercised her powers it would have been too late!

In practical terms, I don't see how this change could be made without Andrew's consent. Not worth opening the can of worms. I am sure the limiting of the HRH is coming but doubt it will be made retroactive, except possibly to apply to Louise just to formalise what has in practise already happened to her.

The difference between Andrew's fight and Edward's acceptance is, I think, rather dramatically reflected in how their respective daughters are styled.

I don't believe there was ever a 'formal' declaration about the York girls' titles. If I remember at the time, it was more speculation brought on by the media rather than any arm of the BRF. I certainly do not think QEII would have brought it up ~ as having two daughers w the HRH really won't impact the long haul (see above posts). I also remember that it was written (again, a media speculative) that Andrew would not allow his daughters to lose their HRHs but that was all the comment from him there was. It wasn't like it was some drawn out battle w Andrew against The Establishment.

As for the situation w Edward, that was entirely different as it was supposedly brought up by Edward and Sophie themselves. And from what I understand, Lady Louise will have the option when she's grown to use what title she is . . . well, entitled to. It's just that her parents chose to "downgrade" her title. Also, for arguments sake, the idea to remove the York girls' titles came AFTER they were born and had already been using the titles. Edward and Sophie decided on the titles of their children BEFORE any children were born. I believe that makes a difference, too.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Frothy

Of course not, and saying "Prince Andrew fought fiercely against this" does not in any way imply that the Queen had issued a statement and then Andrew had rebelled.

He did his fighting before the battle was lost! After the Queen had exercised her powers it would have been too late!

In practical terms, I don't see how this change could be made without Andrew's consent. Not worth opening the can of worms. I am sure the limiting of the HRH is coming but doubt it will be made retroactive, except possibly to apply to Louise just to formalise what has in practise already happened to her.

The difference between Andrew's fight and Edward's acceptance is, I think, rather dramatically reflected in how their respective daughters are styled.

Well since the title of the thread is the Future of the Monarchy, I would like to add that Andrew may well lose the battle when his mother dies and Charles ascends the throne.

I think the government will be very much for scaling down the monarchy and if Charles is himself in favor of scaling down the number of HRHs in the family, both monarch and government may be on the same side of the fence regarding this issue with Andrew regrettably on the other side.

If Charles and the government have their will set on it, I don't see how Andrew can win this one once his mother dies unless he can convince Charles of the rightness of his position yet the two brothers don't see eye to eye on a lot of things as it is.

My suspicions are that Andrew won a reprieve for now from the Queen herself but did nothing to convince Charles of his position. That makes for a temporary situation.

Its possible that they will allow Beatrice and Eugenie to keep the HRHs but for Andrew's reaction to be as strong as it was led me to believe that the discussions also included downgrading Beatrice's and Eugenie's titles and if Charles was a part of that thinktank and Andrew didn't change Charles' mind about it then the stage is set for the two to be set against one another with Charles being the monarch. And unfortunately Andrew will lose out.

[Elspeth]

I think removing the HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie might not be a good PR move, to be honest. Maybe Charles might decide that children of younger sons shouldn't have an HRH in future, but I think it'd be perceived as a mean-spirited power play for him to take it away from those two young ladies. The York title will die with Andrew anyway, so it's only a matter of waiting a generation to implement whatever scaling back he wants to implement.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I think removing the HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie might not be a good PR move, to be honest. Maybe Charles might decide that children of younger sons shouldn't have an HRH in future, but I think it'd be perceived as a mean-spirited power play for him to take it away from those two young ladies. The York title will die with Andrew anyway, so it's only a matter of waiting a generation to implement whatever scaling back he wants to implement.

I agree, Elspeth.

[Frothy]

I agree too and that was why Andrew used the strong language he did (reportedly) that it was "spiteful".

But, one thing; if the York girls look like being an embarassment to the Crown, and they have made some spectacularly ill-advised moves, photoshoots, revealing dresses, unsuitable boyfriends, then the gun-shy Charles may just decide he doesn't care and he wants to take them out of the limelight before they go the way of Fergie and drag the monarchy into disrepute. I really think if they want to stay princesses, they and their advisers should consider sober modest dressing, careful research into possible bfs, and charity work as soon as is feasible, Beatrice should fling herself into it now as she is of age.

[Elspeth]

That's a good point, but considering some of Prince Harry's antics, Charles might be on slightly thin ice if there's any perception that the HRH is granted or withdrawn on merit.

I saw an interview with Princess Beatrice (of course with Sarah in close attendance), and she seemed a remarkably natural, earnest, and sensible young lady. It might be a good idea for Prince Andrew and the Queen to have more input into what the princesses do (or at least, be seen to have more input, because at the moment it seems somewhat as though Sarah is using them as accessories) so they're seen more as Windsors and less as Fergusons.

[Avareenah]

Originally Posted by Frothy

I agree too and that was why Andrew used the strong language he did (reportedly) that it was "spiteful".

But, one thing; if the York girls look like being an embarassment to the Crown, and they have made some spectacularly ill-advised moves, photoshoots, revealing dresses, unsuitable boyfriends, then the gun-shy Charles may just decide he doesn't care and he wants to take them out of the limelight before they go the way of Fergie and drag the monarchy into disrepute. I really think if they want to stay princesses, they and their advisers should consider sober modest dressing, careful research into possible bfs, and charity work as soon as is feasible, Beatrice should fling herself into it now as she is of age.

I agree that the York girls will have to pull their weight in the future. It is no longer acceptable to be a royal prince or princess without proper commitment to the work the royal family is associated with.

Beatrice and Eugenie are very young at this stage and I don't think they should be criticized too much for their clothes and the celebrity riff raff they mix with. They are still under the care of their mother who shows little in the way of sound judgement and reverence for her daughter's positions as royals. Hopefully, they'll emerge from her influence before too long and be a credit to their grandmother and the image of the monarchy.

[chrissy57]

I think they might lose the HRH is they don't do royal duties full time - and I would agree with that.

By the time any decision is made it will be made with the adult consent of the girls and Andrew will have to hear the arguments the girls make themselves.

If they are doing full time royal dutes, which I suspect they won't be doing - don't ask why because it is a feeling only and I have no evidence etc to support my suspicion - then they should keep the HRH but if not then they should voluntarily give it up - but each girl should make up their own minds at a future date.

I wouldn't be surprised if the HRH is withheld from Harry's children as part of a making smaller the RF so that only the children of the monarch and the heir to the heir have it at any one time.

[ysbel]

I think if they do cut down on the HRHs then its not a matter of spite but of wanting to cut down on the liability of a someone's wrong move reflecting on the entire royal family. The fewer royals in the family; the fewer causes for embarassment.

Right now, every HRH is a reflection on the royal family and when one of them gets into trouble, it causes problems for the rest of the family. The non-royal members of the family aren't in that position. Zara got her tongue pierced and was photographed drunk with her boyfriend at a party but it didn't seem to affect the standing of the royal family as a whole. When Harry gets drunk or Beatrice shows low cleavage, then that does reflect on the royal family.

Perhaps with Harry's reputation, Charles wants to cut down on the liability even further. But its an odd departure from the norm than young royals have to 'earn' their HRH status. It makes it sound more like a regular job rather than a position that you're born into and that you have for life.

That goes back to the original question of what does an HRH mean these days.

[kimlan]

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I believed I read somewhere in Princess Caroline of Monaco Forum. She had said that Princess is not a tittle it is a job.