The Monarchy after Elizabeth II

[Madame Royale]

As soon as they enter office, it's not such an 'issue' anymore...

 

[Warren]

When Charles succeeds, BP should make it clear that all Commonwealth Prime Ministers will be invited to the Coronation. What pollie could resist attending "the greatest show on earth", even more so when the most recent was in 1953?

 

[Iluvbertie]

When Charles succeeds, BP should make it clear that all Commonwealth Prime Ministers will be invited to the Coronation. What pollie could resist attending "the greatest show on earth", even more so when the most recent was in 1953?

They were all invited in 1953 so I don't think there is any need to make it an issue. In addition I would expect the PM and/or Head of State of all Commonwealth countries to be invited, certainly before the Heads of States of countries like the USA and Russia and they are sure to be invited.

Being a republic won't change the invitation to the Coronation.

I would love to see us a republic as soon as possible. This knowing that the question will be asked again and not knowing when, and the arguement that it won't be until the Queen dies, which could be another 20 years, is just ridiculous.

 

[Madame Royale]

What pollie could resist

Not an Australian one... Perhaps "Sir Les Patterson" could attend!

On a more serious note, do the Commonwealth Governor Generals attend the coronation aswell as the Prime Ministers? I'd imagone they would but I'm not certain.

 

[wbenson]

Vincent Massey, the Governor General of Canada, didn't attend the coronation according to Rideau Hall. I suppose it makes sense. Her Majesty didn't need to be represented at her own coronation.

Mr. Massey revived the use of the State carriage in 1953 when it was used in Ottawa for the Coronation celebrations of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Amid much pageantry, the carriage brought Vincent Massey and his staff to Parliament Hill under escort by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Not an Australian one... Perhaps "Sir Les Patterson" could attend!

On a more serious note, do the Commonwealth Governor Generals attend the coronation aswell as the Prime Ministers? I'd imagone they would but I'm not certain.

Normally I think that the Governors-General do not attend as they are the monarchs representatives but the Heads of Government attend however that doesn't mean that the Governors-General weren't invited - just that protocal suggested that they didn't attend.

I would expect that the Heads of Government e.g. the Prime Ministers and the High Commissioners of Commonwealth countries and the Heads of States and Ambassadors of countries close to Britain would be invited. However, it is perfectly possible that some Heads of State wouldn't attend but send their Ambassadors or deputies because of protocol again.

 

[DuedePhiladelphia]

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.

Excuse my ignorance on the matter- When u are a HRH, does that mean you are paid from the Civil List? All Charles have to do is sign LoP that recognizes who can or cannot be payees of the Civil List. Let the HRH title continue as it been

 

[wbenson]

The only members of the royal family now paid from the civil list are the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. The household and duties of the Prince of Wales are paid for by proceeds from the Duchy of Cornwall. Expenses of other members of the royal family are paid out of a parliamentary annuity, which the Queen reimburses using the money received from the Duchy of Lancaster.

 

[Menzies]

Australia

It is a mistake to think a republic - we say a politicians' republic - is inevitable for Australia. Many of us say our present system is a Crowned Republic.

The republicans now cannot or will not say what they want apart from ending the role of our oldest institution, the one providing leadership above politics, the Australian Crown.

They propose handing over all power to the political/media class. In 1999, the republican proposal had the support of two thirds of the politicians and most of the mainstream media. They had a very well funded campaign.

Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (www.norepublic.com.au) had 50,000 rank and file supporters across the nation.

We won nationally, in all states and 72% of electorates. The reason there has not been a second referendum is that the politicans know it would go down to an even bigger defeat than in 1999.

We have just celebrated the tenth anniversary: see www.norepublic.com.au

God Save The Queen!

 

[Iluvbertie]

It is a mistake to think a republic - we say a politicians' republic - is inevitable for Australia. Many of us say our present system is a Crowned Republic.

The republicans now cannot or will not say what they want apart from ending the role of our oldest institution, the one providing leadership above politics, the Australian Crown.

They propose handing over all power to the political/media class. In 1999, the republican proposal had the support of two thirds of the politicians and most of the mainstream media. They had a very well funded campaign.

Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (www.norepublic.com.au) had 50,000 rank and file supporters across the nation.

We won nationally, in all states and 72% of electorates. The reason there has not been a second referendum is that the politicans know it would go down to an even bigger defeat than in 1999.

We have just celebrated the tenth anniversary: see www.norepublic.com.au

God Save The Queen!

I voted No in 1999 and meant it then...but like many others I know who voted No then they have now changed and will vote yes next time.

In addition the vote for Yes was 45% and 55% voted No with Victoria at 50% each and the ACT voting Yes.

At my school, we teach the Republican Referendum as part of the Year 10 course in History (which is compulsory in NSW and soon to become a national subject in all states). It has been interesting to chart the changing votes based on the question asked in 1999 - then the electorate where my school is voted No with a majority of 52% but if that same question was put last year, based on the practise referendum we run, with parents being asked to 'postal vote' or 'absentee vote' the vote has steadily increased to being 89% for a Republic.

I know of other teachers who are finding the same thing - an increase in those who would vote Yes even to the question put in 1999.

It was the model that was defeated more than the straight issue itself. I know at least 50 people who voted No in 1999 due to the model but who were and still are ardent republicans and who would love another chance to vote.

Any monarchist who really believes that the issue rather than the model was defeated in 1999 is fooling themselves.

I think a straight plebisicte 'Do you want Australia to become a republic?' would see an overwhelming Yes vote across the country.

The Queen does nothing for Australia, lives in a foreign country, has children and grandchildren who actively campaign for a foreign country for trade, sporting events, influence etc.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

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.

I wonder why politicians seem to have the idea that when the Queen passes the road to an Austraian republic will magically open up. Do they not realise that Charles automatically becomes King of Australia whether they like it or not unless something is put in the consititution beforehand? This is unlikley while both sides of politics are uninterested in the issue. I am hopeful now that the republic push will stay on the backburner now that a committed monarchist is Leader of the Opposition.

I think a straight plebisicte 'Do you want Australia to become a republic?' would see an overwhelming Yes vote across the country.

The fact remains that even if such a plebicite were held and succeeded, it would not be binding and a model would still have to be chosen. The Australian Republican Movement is still unsure of exactly what type of republic it wants. If the peak lobbying group for the issue does not know what it is doing, what chances are there of progress being made past the plebicite stage ?

 

[Iluvbertie]

The fact remains that even if such a plebicite were held and succeeded, it would not be binding and a model would still have to be chosen. The Australian Republican Movement is still unsure of exactly what type of republic it wants. < ed Warren - removed spam link >. If the peak lobbying group for the issue does not know what it is doing, what chances are there of progress being made past the plebicite stage ?

The point behind having a plebiscite is that it would make clear what the Australian public want.

If it was a No vote then it would be an end of the matter for many, many years.

If is was Yes vote then the government would have to find the model that the Australian people want and keep at it until they get it done.

The 1999 referendum rejected one model but the people were never actually asked if they want to be a republic at all - that, to me, needs to be asked first and then proceed to find the model.

By the way - I think your link has been hijacked or.... but I don't really want to go to a Canadian site to buy Viagra.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

I'm sorry about that. It was fine when I posted it. I will get rid of it ASAP.

 

[scooter]

I wonder why politicians seem to have the idea that when the Queen passes the road to an Austraian republic will magically open up. Do they not realise that Charles automatically becomes King of Australia whether they like it or not unless something is put in the consititution beforehand? This is unlikley while both sides of politics are uninterested in the issue. I am hopeful now that the republic push will stay on the backburner now that a committed monarchist is Leader of the Opposition.

To me it's very simple. QEII is held in high esteem throughout the world, not only the Commonwealth. She is greeted by huge crowds no matter where she visits. Charles, assuming he outlives his mother, may inherit. However, it wont make him loved, respected or admired like his mother, who has conducted her life in a blameless fashion. I think you will see a fast devolvement of the Commonwealth if Charles becomes King, not just Australia. I will be curious to see what happens when QEII visits Canada...to contrast her welcome with CHarles and Camilla's recent tepid-to-chilly reception. Somehow I doubt there will be the neccessity for apologies of the lack of crowds due to bird flu.

 

[kathl29]

The 1999 referendum rejected one model but the people were never actually asked if they want to be a republic at all - that, to me, needs to be asked first and then proceed to find the model.

I agree - I know that I would have voted yes in the last referendum if it had just been a question about whether or not to have a republic but I voted no as I did not like the model offered.

I also feel that in the last decade as Gen Y etc have become adults that there is a greater shift in Australia towards a republic which will only increase as the years go by as many younger Australians do not see the British Royal Family as relevant and a lot would probably not know any of them except the Queen, Charles, William and Harry.

The only Royal Family we really hear about in the media in Australia is the Danish Royal Family due to Princess Mary. Unfortunately I think there may be a few younger Australians who if asked would not realise that Mary is from a different Royal Family.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The only Royal Family we really hear about in the media in Australia is the Danish Royal Family due to Princess Mary. Unfortunately I think there may be a few younger Australians who if asked would not realise that Mary is from a different Royal Family.

Yes that is so true.

I have taught kids who think that she is the Queen's daughter and will be our next Queen, in the same way that the Queen is Queen now - not as a consort but as a regnant.

Royalty just has no relevance to these young people - regardless of the individual concerned - it is the concept that has no resonance.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I expect that HM and the Duke will have a fairly large turnout, if only because they're now in their 80s and might not have many more visits here. I'd certainly go to see the Queen if she was appearing within reasonable driving distance. But I wouldn't stand around to see Charles and Camilla.

 

[scooter]

I agree Mermaid, and I suspect many others out there do, too.

 

[Amelia]

If they came as King Charles and Queen(or whatever) Camilla would you stand around for them then or would your reaction to their visit be the same as when they came as Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall?

 

[scooter]

I can only answer for myself. I would wait in the freezing rain for an extended period of time to see QEII. I would not cross the street to see Charles and/or Camilla, regardless of what they call themselves these days. I am old enough to remember what they called one another during the conversation which was taped and released to the public. Yuck.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

So those of you living in a Commonwealth country or the UK don't believe the public will be enthralled with Charles but how about a young King William?

 

[Charlotte1]

So those of you living in a Commonwealth country or the UK don't believe the public will be enthralled with Charles but how about a young King William?

People who live in monarchies or countries with a monarch as Head of State know that a monarchial system isn't a popularity contest! You don't get to choose the one you like, if that's what you want, have a republic. I think those who live in republics find this difficult/strange, they are used to choosing.

Monarchies have to do with stability, not popularity, the monarch and their family are around their entire life, you know what you're getting. They do it from a sense of duty, they know they are born into the role, would probably rather do something else but fulfill the role because it's their duty. They don't have a choice either, which is why Edward VIII was so severely disliked by monarchists and the upper classes in Britain, he failed in his duty. So people who grow up in republics come up with 'well if they don't like it, abdicate' NOOOOOO, that's a total anathma to having a strong sense of duty, you don't take the easy way out!

It's also a fallacy that Charles is that unpopular, in the UK now he's the preferred successor in polls to QEII (not that people have any choice!). In Commonwealth countries where the Queen is the Head of State, the issue isn't 'do you like or dislike Charles/William' but why have a HoS that lives elsewhere? Popularity or liking the person has nothing to do with the debate, that's just the lowest intelligence demominator of the tabloid press factor. William also isn't that popular in the UK to succeed as a young King, too inexperienced and hasn't done anything, seems to be the general consensis. He himself seems to prefer to do other things for a while. (Not that unusual when looking at the European heirs, all of whom only took up fulltime royal duties when they were well into their 30s, study, military service, advanced military service, diplomatic service all took up their time beforehand.)

The older a royal becomes the more they are respected, Charles is getting credit now for his views, he was right is a common thread in articles. His personal life, although the hardcore non-British or commonwealth royal watchers will continue to bring up, really is a non issue for the British (time to move on) and commonwealth ( we don't care). Other monarchs have been adulters, had less than ideal private lives (divorced even!) and were monarchs, that's the thing with a monarchy, you don't get to choose! But you do have a long historical link, with tradition and stability.

I will be curious to see what happens when QEII visits Canada...to contrast her welcome with CHarles and Camilla's recent tepid-to-chilly reception

Large crowds will come to see QEII simply because she is elderly and it may be the last time that she tours parts of Canada. That's what happened in Australia on her last visit, people have a connection with the monarchy and for many Elizabeth is the only monarch they have ever known. Charles and Camilla are a middle aged couple, no glamour of the young lovers, not elderly and 'aren't the marvellous to keep carrying on like this at their age' They did get a reasonably good reception in Canada considering that for security reasons, the actual times they were going to be at places were never given, so those who turned out were determined and waited for long periods of time. There weren't a lot of opportunistic watchers as in 'since we're here we may as well see them' And I'd rather go by reports from those who were actually there rather than distorted media reports, such as 'the trip was marred by protests' There was only one engagement with protestors in Montreal, the other engagements no protestors, nothing at any other place they went. Protests against the monarchy in Quebec aren't that unusual! They got so bad in the 1960s that the Queen and DoE stayed away from Quebec until the '80s, they had far more severe protests at all their engagements, than the one minor one at C & C's.

Contrast Charles and Camilla's visit with Edward and Sophie who come each year, with very little media coverage and few people come to see them or Andrew who's in Canada at least twice a year and again most Canadians wouldn't even know he was there! So C & C got quite a good reception!

 

[wbenson]

They did get a reasonably good reception in Canada considering that for security reasons, the actual times they were going to be at places were never given, so those who turned out were determined and waited for long periods of time.

That was a little disappointing. The last two times the Queen has been to Canada, the itineraries were quite detailed (for an example, compare this single day from the Queen and Prince Philip's trip in 2005 and the entire Ontario segment of Charles and Camilla's visit). Times were listed down to the minute of when she and/or the Duke of Edinburgh would leave their hotel, arrive at the engagement, do certain things while there, leave the engagement, and arrive back at the hotel. I hope they go back to that for HM's next trip.

 

[Iluvbertie]

...The last two times the Queen has been to Canada, the itineraries were quite detailed...

However times have changed since their last visit with the ever present threat of terrorists so fewer details are being given to make it harder for these people to know what is happening.

...Monarchies have to do with stability, not popularity...

I think you have written an excellent argument that sums up exactly what living in a monarchy means and why the personality isn't all that important.
I remember the 1970s and how popular a young Prince Charles was - the 'People's Prince' and the 'hope of the monarchy' and even 'should the Queen abdicate in favour of her far more popular son' type articles and stories - and then look what happens.

That is why I have no time for people who see William as being 'better' than his father. He could be as good, better or worse but Charles has done a fantastic job as 'King in Waiting' except for one mistake - he married the wrong woman. Some think that he should be denied his birthright for that mistake but I bet they wouldn't be prepared to say that to their friends who married the wrong person first off.

 

[muriel]

That is why I have no time for people who see William as being 'better' than his father. He could be as good, better or worse but Charles has done a fantastic job as 'King in Waiting' except for one mistake - he married the wrong woman. Some think that he should be denied his birthright for that mistake but I bet they wouldn't be prepared to say that to their friends who married the wrong person first off.

Quite right. Could not agree more!

 

[Mermaid1962]

I honestly don't know. I'd have to see when the time came.

If they came as King Charles and Queen(or whatever) Camilla would you stand around for them then or would your reaction to their visit be the same as when they came as Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall?

 

[Mermaid1962]

I think that some of that has to do with publicity. Charles and Camilla's visit was quite high profile. After all, Charles is the Prince of Wales. Also, Prince Andrew often comes on visits that are more private than public. There's an announcement from the Governor General's office that the other members of the Royal Family are coming, but there isn't so much publicity when they're here.

Contrast Charles and Camilla's visit with Edward and Sophie who come each year, with very little media coverage and few people come to see them or Andrew who's in Canada at least twice a year and again most Canadians wouldn't even know he was there! So C & C got quite a good reception!

 

[Vicki J]

fixed quotes

To me it's very simple. QEII is held in high esteem throughout the world, not only the Commonwealth. She is greeted by huge crowds no matter where she visits. Charles, assuming he outlives his mother, may inherit. However, it wont make him loved, respected or admired like his mother, who has conducted her life in a blameless fashion.

Queen Elizabeth was fine for her time but you can't stay stuck in the past forever, well most of us can't. I don't think you can hold her up as perfect either, she let her son down badly by interferring in who he wanted to marry, same as she did her sister. I think people that keep going on and on about the Princes past love life are really unchristian and maybe bitter. The Queen has also signed away Britains rights without a whimper to protect her subjects, blameless life, don't think so shes just from a past generation. Would I stand about to see King Charles and Queen Camilla, you bet, same as thousands of others. It's time Australia, New Zealand and Canada became republics and I reckon they are adult enough to realise that as well. Charles is very well repected and admired by many many people. Love is something for family and people you know not strangers.

 

[scooter]

It's not 'his past lovelife' it's his longtime dishonorable conduct. This is something that continued for decades, not a momentary abberation.

 

[Zonk]

Let's not start rehashing the Charles and Camilla affair or how we think it will affect Charles's reign.