The Monarchy after Elizabeth II

[Lakshmi]

Fewer people on the official list receiving allowance would mean either two, one or none as only two actually receive anything now - the monarch and the spouse of the monarch

Depending on who dies first out of Philip and Elizabeth there would be either two or three at the beginning of Charles' reign - Charles, Camilla and possibly Philip.

Anything that any of the others receive is repaid by the Queen.

Oops, I didn't know this. So, the list of people getting allowance would remind the same, I guess.

 

[Kotroman]

I think finally British heir to throne will allowed to marry Catholic and more.

Perhaps de jure, but never de facto.

There will be limited group of people having title HRH.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The style of Royal Highness has been limited to British princes and princesses since 1714.

 

[kimebear]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The style of Royal Highness has been limited to British princes and princesses since 1714.

I think Lakshmi was speaking of the rumor that Charles would like to decrease the size of the royal family. There is already talk about the York princesses being asked to give up their HRHs and perhaps it will become a style limited to the heir of the heir.

 

[Kotroman]

Where have you read that? That would be horrible! Which style would the rest of the Royal Family enjoy?

...perhaps it will become a style limited to the heir of the heir.

So, only Charles, Camilla and William would be Royal Highnesses? The Sovereign's younger children wouldn't be Royal Highness either?

 

[kimebear]

No, I think what the rumor was saying was that, the children of the sovereign would be styled HRH, but only the heir of the heir would be HRH. ex, when Charles becomes King, William and Harry are both HRH, but only William's heir will be an HRH until William himself becomes King. No more automatic male line HRHs for the sovereign's grandchildren.

 

[Iluvbertie]

No, I think what the rumor was saying was that, the children of the sovereign would be styled HRH, but only the heir of the heir would be HRH. ex, when Charles becomes King, William and Harry are both HRH, but only William's heir will be an HRH until William himself becomes King. No more automatic male line HRHs for the sovereign's grandchildren.

Some evidence to suggest that this will happen is that Edward's children aren't using the HRH at the moment (and we don't need another discussion about whether or not the announcement of their titles constitutes a change to the 1917 Letters Patent).

As the decision regarding Edward's children came after the first suggestion that Beatrice and Eugenie might lose their HRH on turning 18 I think it does suggest that Charles intends to limit the HRH to the children of the monarch and the children/heir to the heir only so William's children would eventually become HRH but Harry's wouldn't.

It would also give those children more of a choice about what they want to do - royal jobs or other work.

 

[HRHofNothing]

So according to this say William has a second son named Clamcy. He will not be an HRH at birth and then all of a sudden when his father accedes (and say Clamcy is 35 has a family of his own and has been sucessfully emplyed as a circus clown for years) he suddenly becomes HRH Prince Clamcy of the United Kingdom and has to give up his career to perform royal duties! That does not sound right.

 

[muriel]

A couple of points that come to mind:

1) These are just a bunch of rumours flying around, and have been or sime time. In practice, it will be a while before anything like this is put into practice, and I have no doubt that obvious anomolies in the porposed system will be ironed iot. I suspect it will end up allowing children of the monarch, and children of the heirs to the throne having HRH titles. However, if you are the second or third child of the monarch, or the second or third child of the heir to the throne, your descendants would not have the HRH title. eg. arry will have HRH, but hsi children will not. Clancy will always have HRH, but will not pass it on.

2) There is no direct link between having the HRH title and having to undertyake royal duties. Prince & Princess Michael of Kent at HRHs, but do not really do any royal engagements.

 

[Iluvbertie]

So according to this say William has a second son named Clamcy. He will not be an HRH at birth and then all of a sudden when his father accedes (and say Clamcy is 35 has a family of his own and has been sucessfully emplyed as a circus clown for years) he suddenly becomes HRH Prince Clamcy of the United Kingdom and has to give up his career to perform royal duties! That does not sound right.

That is exactly the situation under the current Letters Patent.

If either or both of William and Harry marry and have children during the Queen's reign only William's eldest son will be HRH from birth. Any other child/ren of William and/or Harry would get the HRH only when Charles becomes King. Of course if Charles dies before his mother then any children of Harry's won't get the HRH at all as they would never be the male line grandchildren of the monarch.

The current LPs give the HRH to

a) the children of the monarch - Charles, Andrew, Edward and Anne
b) male line grandchildren of a monarch - William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, James, Louise (who aren't using it), Richard Duke of Gloucester, Edward Duke of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent, Princess Alexandra of Kent.
c) the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (namely William's eldest son only).


The fact that two of those entitled to the HRH are currently not using it suggests to me that in future the LPs might be changed to limit the HRH to the children of the monarch and only the eldest son/child of the heir to the throne. That would mean that people like Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, James, Louise, Richard, Edward of Kent, Michael and Alexandra wouldn't get it in the future but I don't think that Charles would necessarily remove it from those who already have and use it (although they might voluntarily give it up).

 

[Kotroman]

That is exactly the situation under the current Letters Patent.

If either or both of William and Harry marry and have children during the Queen's reign only William's eldest son will be HRH from birth. Any other child/ren of William and/or Harry would get the HRH only when Charles becomes King. Of course if Charles dies before his mother then any children of Harry's won't get the HRH at all as they would never be the male line grandchildren of the monarch.

BUT, I doubt that any of Henry's children would be 35-year-olds with a family and career of their own during Queen Elizabeth II's lifetime. I doubt that she'll live for 200 years (unless you believe that David Icke is right when he says that Her Majesty is a lizard ).

 

[Mermaid1962]

Ahhh....so that's why she takes an extended holiday during the winter...she slows down in cold weather. Actually, I've read some of David Icke's stuff just out of curiosity. Bizarre.

. I doubt that she'll live for 200 years (unless you believe that David Icke is right when he says that Her Majesty is a lizard ).

 

[Iluvbertie]

BUT, I doubt that any of Henry's children would be 35-year-olds with a family and career of their own during Queen Elizabeth II's lifetime. I doubt that she'll live for 200 years (unless you believe that David Icke is right when he says that Her Majesty is a lizard ).

The said 35 year old Clamcy would become an HRH when Charles becomes king but the original post said

So according to this say William has a second son named Clamcy. He will not be an HRH at birth and then all of a sudden when his father accedes (and say Clamcy is 35 has a family of his own and has been sucessfully emplyed as a circus clown for years) he suddenly becomes HRH Prince Clamcy of the United Kingdom and has to give up his career to perform royal duties! That does not sound right.

meaning that I assumed that the Clamcy was 35 when the Queen died and thus would become an HRH at that point.

Regardless of how old Clamcy is when the Queen dies he won't be an HRH until his grandfather, Charles becomes king.

Maybe we read the original post incorrectly or differently.

 

[Kotroman]

I think that HRHofNothing (who mentioned Clamcy) responded to the poster who said that Charles intends to limit the style of Royal Highness to the children of the monarch and the children/heir to the heir only so William's children would eventually become HRH but Henry's wouldn't.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think that HRHofNothing (who mentioned Clamcy) responded to the poster who said that Charles intends to limit the style of Royal Highness to the children of the monarch and the children/heir to the heir only so William's children would eventually become HRH but Henry's wouldn't.

The original mention of the hypothetical Clemcy was that he was the second son of William and would therefore be born without the HRH, under Charles maybe reforms. I pointed out that as the second son of William Clamcy wouldn't be an HRH under the present LPs.

My reading of the original post was that the poster didn't realise that William's eldest son will be born with the HRH but no other child of William's and none of Harry's born during the reign of The Queen. Any later sons and any daughters of William will be born as plain Master or Miss (unless William gets a dukedom on marriage in which case they will be Lord or Lady - remembering the eldest son and heir will be HRH) until Charles becomes King.

If Charles doesn't become King then Harry's children will never get the HRH.

 

[HRHofNothing]

The original mention of the hypothetical Clemcy was that he was the second son of William and would therefore be born without the HRH, under Charles maybe reforms. I pointed out that as the second son of William Clamcy wouldn't be an HRH under the present LPs.

My reading of the original post was that the poster didn't realise that William's eldest son will be born with the HRH but no other child of William's and none of Harry's born during the reign of The Queen. Any later sons and any daughters of William will be born as plain Master or Miss (unless William gets a dukedom on marriage in which case they will be Lord or Lady - remembering the eldest son and heir will be HRH) until Charles becomes King.

If Charles doesn't become King then Harry's children will never get the HRH.

I wote the post under the assumption that Clamcy would become a HRH upon the accession of William but that is not correct. He would become an HRH on his grandfather's accession.

LOL @ EIIR being a lizzard.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I wote the post under the assumption that Clamcy would become a HRH upon the accession of William but that is not correct. He would become an HRH on his grandfather's accession.

LOL @ EIIR being a lizzard.

Thank you for clearing up, in my mind, what you were saying and to what I was replying.

I hope everyone else is clear now on when (and if) Wiliam and Harry's children will get the HRH.

 

[Saragli]

What do you think about changing the succession laws so that the youngest child, regardless of sex, would inherit the throne. Simply because people are living longer, so we could be seeing a lot of Elizabeth/Charles situations.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I think that it's better to see an Elizabeth/Charles situation rather than one where someone is thrown into kingship at a young age, as the current Queen was. She had to sacrifice a lot in terms of family life once she became Queen, and the Duke had to let go any naval aspirations he had.

What do you think about changing the succession laws so that the youngest child, regardless of sex, would inherit the throne. Simply because people are living longer, so we could be seeing a lot of Elizabeth/Charles situations.

 

[MARG]

Utterly ghastly thought. I have read many really critical articles about QEII because she didn't spend enough time with her children when they were young.

Charles and Diana were luckier as heirs in that the could take William with them on their first overseas trip. Also the advent of jet travel largely protected later monarchs as they did not have the sail around the world for weeks or monthw.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What do you think about changing the succession laws so that the youngest child, regardless of sex, would inherit the throne. Simply because people are living longer, so we could be seeing a lot of Elizabeth/Charles situations.

Are you suggesting that instead of Charles being the Queen's heir that Edward should be because he is the Queen's youngest child and that then James should follow Edward as Edward's younger child?

I don't agree because of the simple fact of not knowing and too many changes to who the next monarch is to be at times e.g. during Queen Victoria's reign there would have been nine changes to the order with Beatrice being the eventual Queen (or course Victoria wouldn't have become Queen anyway as she was not a product of the youngest child - not for that matter would the present Queen as Margaret would have inherited with Sarah Chatto being the heir.)

 

[Skydragon]

What do you think about changing the succession laws so that the youngest child, regardless of sex, would inherit the throne. Simply because people are living longer, so we could be seeing a lot of Elizabeth/Charles situations.

The eldest child/children are tutored from an early age, in the duties they will one day have to perform. With your suggestion, the eldest would have to learn as much as possible, until he is superseded by the next child birthed. Then you have the possible situation (and resentment), when the parents have another child when the first born is 20+, 30+ and the eldest loses his place, having spent his entire life to date, training for a role that is no longer available to him.

It couldn't work and the laws that would have to be changed...

 

[Saragli]

haha, it was just a thought.

But personally, I think if every child were raised as if they were to be the heir, we would have a pretty level-headed stock of royals. But people living into their 90's and up, especially if your royalty and have access to the best foods and medicine, is going to become a normal thing. I think we are going to get a lot of older monarchs in the future.

Also wanted to say, I think the RF will be downsized so that only the children of the monarch and heir are HRH's. I do think majority of the commonwealth realms will become republics, its inevitable and I agree with it. Church and State will definitely separate and the Monarch will no longer be Supreme Governor or Defender of the Faith. Especially with the new developments between the Catholics and Anglicans. But besides from that, I don't think much will change at all. It is a firm and ancient institution, the traditions are one of the reasons its survives.

 

[rmay286]

I wonder if the abdication of a monarch when he/she reaches a certain age would become more common. With people living longer, after a while most heirs to the throne could be in their sixties before succeeding to the throne. I don't see Queen Elizabeth abdicating, but if Charles is in his seventies when he becomes king, I wonder if he would consider abdicating eventually to spare William from a similar fate?

 

[Mermaid1962]

I think it depends on whether coronations as it now stands, complete with the anointing of the monarch, continues. Many monarchies have enthronement ceremonies now, not coronations as such. The coronation ceremony seems to be a more binding act, especially since the anointing harkens back to the days of ancient kings. It depends as well what the monarch actually promises at his or her coronation. Personally, I'd prefer to see the monarch to see his/her role as a lifetime's work; not something that he/she could actually retire from. To me, the possibility of retirement lessens the commitment involved and also the public view of that person. Do we value the monarch until that person is old and feeble and not able to do so much work for us, or do we respect the person as monarch until he or she dies?

I wonder if the abdication of a monarch when he/she reaches a certain age would become more common. With people living longer, after a while most heirs to the throne could be in their sixties before succeeding to the throne. I don't see Queen Elizabeth abdicating, but if Charles is in his seventies when he becomes king, I wonder if he would consider abdicating eventually to spare William from a similar fate?

 

[Iluvbertie]

I wonder if the abdication of a monarch when he/she reaches a certain age would become more common. With people living longer, after a while most heirs to the throne could be in their sixties before succeeding to the throne. I don't see Queen Elizabeth abdicating, but if Charles is in his seventies when he becomes king, I wonder if he would consider abdicating eventually to spare William from a similar fate?

I do not see Charles abdicating at all. William maybe as I don't see him with the same commitment to be royal as Charles but Charles will be king from his mother's death until his own death and if that means William will be in his 50s then that is all to the good in my opinion.

 

[Royal Fan]

at what do you think The Prince of Wales will succeed sorry if im veering off topic just curious

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, I think that you're right. If William becomes king at 50, that's only 23 years away--and those 23 years will seem to go much faster than the last 27. He'll have lots of experience with the Royal job before becoming King, in that case.

I do not see Charles abdicating at all. William maybe as I don't see him with the same commitment to be royal as Charles but Charles will be king from his mother's death until his own death and if that means William will be in his 50s then that is all to the good in my opinion.

 

[Iluvbertie]

at what do you think The Prince of Wales will succeed sorry if im veering off topic just curious

I assume you mean 'at what age' will Charles become King. I have no idea but I do think within the next 10 - 15 years and then I do see him reigning for about the same number of years. In other words I see no reason why he won't live to be at least 90 putting William in his late 50s when he becomes King with a grown family and plenty of experience, which can't be a bad thing.

 

[Lighthouse]

...I do think majority of the commonwealth realms will become republics, its inevitable and I agree with it. Church and State will definitely separate and the Monarch will no longer be Supreme Governor or Defender of the Faith. Especially with the new developments between the Catholics and Anglicans. But besides from that, I don't think much will change at all. It is a firm and ancient institution, the traditions are one of the reasons its survives.

You might be surprised. A few years ago I had to vote in an Australian referendum about whether Australia should become a republic.

Australian republic referendum, 1999 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Warren]

...I do think majority of the commonwealth realms will become republics, its inevitable...

It may be inevitable, but the issue has been placed firmly on the backburner in Australia. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the Oppostion (a committed republican) is interested in pursuing it; in fact the latter is of the view that nothing will happen while Elizabeth II reigns, while the former doesn't appear to be interested in even discussing it.