The Monarchy after Elizabeth II

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by Missyjojo88

Since the question was about the changes made after the Queen dies, I'm not saying to stop giving money to the Queen or any head of states. What I meant is that since there are a list of royals that get money from the civil purse, may be they might cut back on that.

There are TWO people who get money from the civil purse - the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh.

Of course the ones doing royal duties should get paid for their work, but I gather that they might come up with a way to cut back on those on the list who are getting paid.

But only TWO people are getting paid by the government NOW.

All the rest are paid by the Queen - she repays any money given to them by the government.

What happens is this - the government makes a payment of x pounds to various members of the royal family - effectively paying them a salary to do royal duties but... the Queen then repays that money to the government except for the money received by herself and her consort.

For example the Glos and Princess Alexander will most likely step back from royal duties once Charles come to the throne.

Why - there will still be a need for them to work if they want to and when Charles comes to the throne there will be at least one less royal to do the work currently being done. As Alexandra is already in her 70s she is naturally cutting back and will continue to do so as age takes it toll.

They will head into the directions of the Kents who don't get money from the civil purse.

The Kents, just like the Gloucesters get paid by the Queen not the government anymore.

The Duke still does many duties. It is his wife that doesn't.

Prince Michael gets his income from consultative work that he does not from the Queen but that is because he doesn't do that many royal duties anyway.

That's what I meant by cutting back on the civil purse.

I think you need to understand one thing - and I have already said it in this post and the previous one - only TWO people get anything from the civil list now so cutting it back isn't a real option.

And if the Princesses of York are not willing to do their duty as princesses they should just not get money from the head of states, but still allow to keep their royal titles. But I just don't think they should strip anyone of their titles.

They were never going to get any money from the government. If the Queen chooses to give them money from her personal wealth then she may do so but I suspect that if they don't do royal duties full time they will have to get themselves jobs that pay them enough to live, just like their cousins Peter and Zara - Peter works for a company and Zara is being sponsored to train full time for the Olympics - in time she will probably go into coaching in that area full time and I suspect that her younger cousins may do the same thing.

Too bad about all the charities and places that want to have a royal connection - in time there won't be enough royals working full time at being royal to actually do all the work in Britian, let alone around the world.

[Elspeth]

Well, part of the problem is that nowadays the royals don't have the pulling power that they did because for many charities, especially those which are looking for participation from young people, sports and media celebrities are more effective than minor royals. When the Kents and Gloucesters were younger, there weren't so many other options - if a charity wanted a real boost, it had to have a royal patron or president. These days that's somewhat less important, so the lack of royals might not be as much of a problem as it was.

When George VI first came to the throne the royal family was also rather small - Princess Mary was married to a commoner, the Duke of Windsor was gone (and George VI knew he was gone for ever, even if he didn't), and the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent didn't have children old enough to carry out duties. Then the Duke of Kent died and the Duke of Gloucester went off to Australia for a while. Apart from the King and Queen and Queen Mary, there were just a few assorted elderly royals like Princess Marie Louise to do charity work. The abundance of royals in the 1970s and 1980s was part of a cycle, not so much a normal state of affairs.

[jcbcode99]

I agree that we are getting ready to look at a bit of scaled back monarchy--but the Duke of York is not exactly old, and the Earl and Countess of Wessex will no doubt soon be taking on more royal duties. I think they'll be around a while. They've been raised to understand the importance of doing such work, and I believe they will instill that within their daughters as well. We cannot determine what the Princesses of York will do, but my guess would be that once they are married they will continue in the tradition of being patrons. After all, why have a grandmother who was Queen and an Uncle who is King if you're not going to be involved? Just because they aren't quite yet serious does not mean they will be derelict in their future duties (examples being both Charles and Andrew!). And, let's not write off the Kents and Gloucesters just yet. Nor, the Phillips children. As they mature they may well continue the model of service their mother has demonstrated for them.
Regardless of all of that--whether one wants to perform a service for the crown and become a patron of something is fine, and if they want to get paid that is fine as well--but if they don't want to be involved in that way thats' fine, too. But, the HRH is hereditary and should not be taken away if they choose to live a more private life.

[caterpillarandcat]

That country of "Great Britan" is belongst to the residents, and no one should take title of Queen, except for her current self and then to cautiously approach the topic, her daughter. It oughta be the Queens' kids' according to their age, and after them, then their kids, redundancy fastly approaching....a monarchy title is seemingly by bloodline then given title, not married in and make new. Commonwealth is important, heritage is equally recognized and given strength through unity in peace and decisions are eventually made regaurding topic for everyones best intrest. 'nuff typed`

[ysbel]

Well in the younger generation there are only four royals: William, Harry, Beatrice, and Eugenie. Beatrice and Eugenie can't pass down their royal title to their children so that leaves us with William and Harry as the only ones that can pass down their royal title to the next generation. Of the present royals outside the Queen's immediate family I think the Gloucesters are the youngest and they're not that young any more. Or it may be Princess Michael but she is no spring chicken either.

I think the current situation of excess royals will naturally become less severe over time.

[PrinceOfCanada]

Yes, digging up another one from the past...

All this talk of making the RF smaller seems quite silly to me. Of course all that Windsor/York/Kent/Philips mob are part of the Royal Family. What they should do is draw a distinction between the Royal (extended) Family, and the Royal (nuclear) House.

[Elspeth]

I'm not sure that most people would understand that sort of distinction. Some people think that a person has to have an HM or HRH in order to be royal, and some people think that all the Queen's relatives are royal whether they do royal duties or not. Most of my friends and relations in the UK still think the Gloucesters and Kents get Civil List income - somewhere along the line, the PR coming out of Buckingham Palace isn't as clear as it could be.

[Claire]

There is a lot of misunderstanding regarding the royals andb their money.
But I have to say that change is unaviodable. Charles likes to be seen as a man of the people and of change so I expect him to be at the fore, along with his cronies.
But yes, all of this is very speculative. We live in a very unstable world at the moment, people perceptions change with the morning headlines and one large bomb later, we might have the Kents on the throne.

[KingCharles]

I think the survival of the British Monarchy is set in stone regardless of adaptation to modern times or sticking to old traditions. The people proved a monarchy to be important when the Interregnum ended (Oliver Cromwell in power as Lord Protector instead of a King/Queen).
I, do think that the monarchy does need to establish a common ground with the general public. The fact that there is talk about survival is rather worrying as it kind of gives me the impression that a monarchy is no longer relevant. In some respects it isn't, but in others it is. I think the survival, politically speaking, because the monarch is a politician regardless of what conventions and parliament acts state. I know that in a constitutional monarchy, the King/Queen is meant to be politically neutral. This is impossible as a monarchy are hereditary political leaders. Before you think I am just rambling, there is some thought behind it. To survive the monarchy needs to have more political power. I know this will not happen because the power struggle between parliament and the monarchy has been greatly fought, and there is alot of history that goes with it, but that in my opinion is the only way they are going to seem ever more relevant in the coming decades. The majority of people believe that the monarchy do nothing, live in nice palaces and castles, and take the tax-payers money. I think a greater education about the monarchy is needed and as to why they are important, or not important, whatever the case may be to give people the real facts. I think that a monarch should either have power and be able to use it, or cut all the red tape and just say, "you're a ceremonial figurehead, end of story."
I think it's pointless in our British Monarchy for the Queen to have power to dissolve parliament as she pleases, send the armed forces to war, declare peace, grant pardons, choose her own Prime Minister, and still having to get approval from the politicians or the Prime Minister to do so. That is not real power so why mask it as though it is?

I think for true survival, there has to be a greater appeal rather a historical gate way to the past. We know our history, we know what happened and why things are the way they are today in the political sense, but if they monarchy are just acting as leaders or a national focus point, does anyone think they will survive?