The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 05-22-2018, 09:23 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 6,650
The Future of the British Monarchy



The Future of The British Monarchy

Here we can discuss the future of the British Monarchy including the Monarchy after Elizabeth II and the Monarchy under Charles and so replaces the The Monarchy after Elizabeth II and The Monarchy under Charles threads
__________________

__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-23-2018, 06:42 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 441
Now that Charles's immediately family has expanded so much, I can now actually see the idea of Charles, William, Harry plus spouses, being the only working royals becoming a real possibility.

It would certainly keep the York family in particular from generating negative headlines.

The Cambridges and Sussexes have a vast potential for massively increasing their royal workload.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-23-2018, 10:19 PM
Frozen Royalist's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Raleigh, United States
Posts: 156
Well here's an interesting thought I just had. If Britain were to abolish the monarchy before any of the Commonwealth Realms, as in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, what would become of the House of Windsor? Would they move to any of the Commonwealth Realms or just stay in Britain/England? Honestly I wouldn't mind the Windsors relocating to Canada in any event but what do you guys think?

I mean this does technically involve the future of the British Royal Family in the event of a abolishment so it is relevant to this thread right here. Plus look at it like this, it isn't like they'd have to have a referendum in the three nations I talked about because they are already the head of states there.

-Frozen Royalist
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-23-2018, 11:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 5,685
IMO that would depend upon the terms on which the monarchy was abolished, on whether homes like Balmoral (in an independent Scotland) and Sandringham were still available, as well as on personal preference. I can't imagine the Queen wanting to go off and live in Italy or Romania for example but I can see Charles finding that option attractive. Harry and Meghan might choose Africa and the US.

If Charles or anyone else wished to go and live in Canada or Australia, (if they were still realms which I doubt,) it would probably require some consultation between Britain and the specific other countries. It could well be a bone of contention.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:47 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,251
Happy to see the conversation in this thread. I, too, am curious as to the titles of Harry's children. It seems that Edward and Sophie established a precedent. It would be rather hypocritical for Harry's children to carry HRH's while people continue to berate Beatrice and Eugenie for having HRH titles.

To be quite honest, William now has 3 heirs -- Harry is not even a spare any more. JMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:57 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 3,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozen Royalist View Post
Well here's an interesting thought I just had. If Britain were to abolish the monarchy before any of the Commonwealth Realms, as in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, what would become of the House of Windsor? Would they move to any of the Commonwealth Realms or just stay in Britain/England? Honestly I wouldn't mind the Windsors relocating to Canada in any event but what do you guys think?

I mean this does technically involve the future of the British Royal Family in the event of a abolishment so it is relevant to this thread right here. Plus look at it like this, it isn't like they'd have to have a referendum in the three nations I talked about because they are already the head of states there.

-Frozen Royalist
Abolishing the monarchy in the UK would have an immediate effect in Canada as the sovereign of Canada, under the Canadian constitution, is automatically the person who occupies the British throne under the UK laws of succession. As we learned from the Harper government during the debate on the Succession to the Crown Act, Canada properly does NOT have a law on succession to the Crown.

In other words, if the British laws of succession were repealed in the UK, Canada would in practice find itself without a Head of State until new constitutional arrangements could be put n place. Maybe something similar would happen in Australia, but I am not sure.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-26-2018, 03:45 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by suztav View Post
Happy to see the conversation in this thread. I, too, am curious as to the titles of Harry's children. It seems that Edward and Sophie established a precedent. It would be rather hypocritical for Harry's children to carry HRH's while people continue to berate Beatrice and Eugenie for having HRH titles.

To be quite honest, William now has 3 heirs -- Harry is not even a spare any more. JMHO.
?? Who "berates" them>? They are not responsibile for their titles, it is the normal title for a grandchild of the monarch, in the male line to have the title of Prince or Princess and HRH. Nobody is berating them for their titles. Edward and Sophie accepted lesser titles for their children because they and their children were far down the line and at the time, it was not expected that Ed and S would do royal duties. Even now, it is very very unlikely that james and Louise will be on the royal duty roster. However Harry's children probably will be....
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-26-2018, 04:08 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 3,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
?? Who "berates" them>? They are not responsibile for their titles, it is the normal title for a grandchild of the monarch, in the male line to have the title of Prince or Princess and HRH. Nobody is berating them for their titles. Edward and Sophie accepted lesser titles for their children because they and their children were far down the line and at the time, it was not expected that Ed and S would do royal duties. Even now, it is very very unlikely that james and Louise will be on the royal duty roster. However Harry's children probably will be....

Edward was 7th in line when he got married. Harry is currently 6th, so they are not that different in that respect.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-26-2018, 04:12 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
?? Who "berates" them>? They are not responsibile for their titles, it is the normal title for a grandchild of the monarch, in the male line to have the title of Prince or Princess and HRH. Nobody is berating them for their titles. Edward and Sophie accepted lesser titles for their children because they and their children were far down the line and at the time, it was not expected that Ed and S would do royal duties. Even now, it is very very unlikely that james and Louise will be on the royal duty roster. However Harry's children probably will be....


Please! I’ve read posts on this Board where people talk about Beatrice and Eugenie as if they were no better than a housemaid. Those two are persecuted by the “nay sayers” . It’s positively disgraceful.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-26-2018, 07:17 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
?? Who "berates" them>? They are not responsibile for their titles, it is the normal title for a grandchild of the monarch, in the male line to have the title of Prince or Princess and HRH. Nobody is berating them for their titles. Edward and Sophie accepted lesser titles for their children because they and their children were far down the line and at the time, it was not expected that Ed and S would do royal duties. Even now, it is very very unlikely that james and Louise will be on the royal duty roster. However Harry's children probably will be....
You must have missed all the tabloids calling for Beatrice and Eugenie to voluntarily relinquish their HRHs or to have Charles strip them away when he is King. After all, Anne "refused" titles for Peter and Zara and so did Edward and Sophie for their kids so therefore why do "those Yorks" still have them?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-26-2018, 07:26 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 3,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by suztav View Post
Happy to see the conversation in this thread. I, too, am curious as to the titles of Harry's children. It seems that Edward and Sophie established a precedent. It would be rather hypocritical for Harry's children to carry HRH's while people continue to berate Beatrice and Eugenie for having HRH titles.

To be quite honest, William now has 3 heirs -- Harry is not even a spare any more. JMHO.
I'm one of the ones that thinks Harry will ask his children to be address as children of a Duke when the time comes, but why would it be hypocritical if they were to follow the LP? I haven't seen Harry berate Beatrice and Eugenie for their HRH titles.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-26-2018, 07:30 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 3,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraS3514 View Post
You must have missed all the tabloids calling for Beatrice and Eugenie to voluntarily relinquish their HRHs or to have Charles strip them away when he is King. After all, Anne "refused" titles for Peter and Zara and so did Edward and Sophie for their kids so therefore why do "those Yorks" still have them?
I haven't seen any tabloid articles (I'm talking about DM, DE, DM and so on here) calling for the York princesses' titles to be stripped. It's rightfully theirs. Even if a new LP is issued changing the law to only grandchildren of monarch from the heir to be HRH, a provision is likely to be made for the York princesses to keep their HRHs. Especially given that's how their birth certificate and legal documents were issued. Now some do treat them unfairly by not allowing them to carry on a complete private life and make remarks about them, but no one has called for their HRH to be stripped anymore than they've called for monarchy to be abolished.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-26-2018, 07:32 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 3,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Edward was 7th in line when he got married. Harry is currently 6th, so they are not that different in that respect.
The caveat is that HMQ has four children with Edward being the youngest, while Prince Charles only has two sons. Harry will be featured prominently as a representative of the monarchy, much moreso than Edward, until George and siblings grow up. Judging by the way things were done with this generation, I don't expect them to take up full time duty for another 30 or so years.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-26-2018, 08:27 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 7,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
The caveat is that HMQ has four children with Edward being the youngest, while Prince Charles only has two sons. Harry will be featured prominently as a representative of the monarchy, much moreso than Edward, until George and siblings grow up. Judging by the way things were done with this generation, I don't expect them to take up full time duty for another 30 or so years.
Featured prominently doing what exactly? Prince Henry can promote his causes. I do not think that he is capable of taking over Prince Andrew's delicate assignments.
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-26-2018, 08:32 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 876
I think Charles would like to have his grandchildren have HRH. The rules changed when Camilla married in and again when Kate joined the Firm. Will the rules change now that Meghan is in and Jack will soon join?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-26-2018, 08:36 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 3,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post

Featured prominently doing what exactly? Prince Henry can promote his causes. I do not think that he is capable of taking over Prince Andrew's delicate assignments.
Representing the crown. And aren't all of their assignments causes? And let's not act like Andrew has been some great promoter of projects. The publicity disaster resulting from his role as trade ambassador and that interview with The Sunday Times regarding innovation and palace hasn't exactly been great representation of "delicate" assignments.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-26-2018, 08:38 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 3,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
I think Charles would like to have his grandchildren have HRH. The rules changed when Camilla married in and again when Kate joined the Firm. Will the rules change now that Meghan is in and Jack will soon join?
I think Charles would defer to his son on this simply because he's well aware Harry's children will be private citizens.

And what rules are you referring to?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-26-2018, 08:43 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 7,123
I think one of the first things Charles will do as king is issue a new LP ‘updating’ royal styles and titles.

1917 was a long time ago. Public attitudes change. I think the days of having a royal title just for the sake of it are over.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-26-2018, 08:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 3,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
I think one of the first things Charles will do as king is issue a new LP ‘updating’ royal styles and titles.

1917 was a long time ago. Public attitudes change. I think the days of having a royal title just for the sake of it are over.
I don't think we'll see Charles do it. Just because while he has some very progressive ideas, I still see him as more of a traditionalist when it comes to things like that. Just like the Queen didn't. He will issue a will, but that's about it. We might see that change when it comes to William's turn. Quite frankly, even then, I wouldn't bet my last dollar on it. I think it'd be a bit awkward until all the HRH that's only a grandchild of a monarch has passed away.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-26-2018, 09:04 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 7,123
I think Charles has proven to be very pragmatic when it comes to monarchy. It was Charles who gave the British people the term ‘princess consort’. For no other reason than he thought it was good PR. If he’s willing to not have Camilla styled as Queen, limiting HRH is a piece of cake.

I have almost no doubt he’ll limit royal styles and titles during his reign. Plus it allows him to put his own stamp on things after probably 70 years of his mother as sovereign.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Future of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1427 06-17-2018 03:02 PM
The Future of the Danish Monarchy Empress Royal House of Denmark 717 04-13-2018 02:24 PM
Future of the Belgian monarchy Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 118 01-24-2018 09:35 PM
Future of the Dutch Monarchy Marengo Dutch Royals 39 11-29-2017 09:53 AM




Popular Tags
biography camilla chris o'neill crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge evening wear duchess of cambridge fashion duchess of cambridge style duchess of york english books family fashion general news gloucester grand duchess maria teresa grand duke jean harry and meghan hasnat khan hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín jacobite king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia meghan markle news osborn porphyria prince prince charles prince charles; biographies; tom bower prince daniel prince gabriel prince harry prince harry of wales prince nicholas prince oscar princess claire of luxembourg princess diana princess eleonore princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sibilla princess victoria queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen mathilde queen maxima question royal royal ancestry royal ancestry; oscar and sophia royal family royal geneology royal wedding state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion victoria wedding



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:30 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises