The Monarchy after Elizabeth II

[Charlotte1]

Yes ada, I agree. The choice of the Prince of Wales to marry his long time mistress has completely put me off the idea of him being King. With any luck QEII will live a very long time, and William with any luck will get a speech coach. He needs someone to held him with what will be a major portion of his role, which he's dead awful with (public speaking).
Elspeth, at the risk of being shouted at, on the occasion of Prince Charles' 60th birthday a poll commissioned re:Camilla being Queen vs Princess Consort had a 17% approval of the concept of Camilla being Queen. It's not just a few people. On this board, there is a very vocal Camilla Claque. That is not neccessarily a reflection of the rest of the population, where quite a few of us either get deleted or banned. Historically speaking, when a CP or monarch marries his mistress it is always poorly received...think Anne Boleyn.

The Poll you are referring to was a Yougov poll of 1000 people, not exactly extensive research. But none the less using the Yougov polls of 1000 people. In 2005 at the time of Charles and Camilla's marriage 9% ( yougov poll sample) people said they were happy to have Camilla crowned as Queen. In late 2007 after two and a half years of marriage ( again yougov poll) had 28% of people happy to have Camilla crowned Queen. So in a short time the support for Camilla as Queen had trebled. This year's yougov poll was taken just after there was much negative publicity over Camilla not continuing on with the foreign tour to Indonesia ( Just Japan and Brunei) but even so after all that negative publicity even with support falling it was still almost double from when they married. Support for Camilla will continue to go up and down but as the years pass it will continue to increase simply as a new generation come along. For example Keira Knightly when she was publicising her movie "The Duchess" stated that it was not Diana's story, she ( Keira) was only 11 when Diana died and she really didn't know the story about her. For younger people unless they actually follow royals, the only wife of Charles they would be familiar with would be Camilla, they would see no reason for Camilla not to be crowned Queen.
Monarchs are at their most popular when they are young or old. This can be seen quite clearly with Queen Elizabeth II as a young Queen from the 1950's she was a superstar, then there was a dip. Now as an elderly Queen again her popularity is sky high. The same will be the case with Charles as he gets older, he got an enormous amount of positive press for his 60th. The older he becomes the more sagelike he becomes as well. As for William his popularity has taken a fall, yougov poll again. This year more wanted Charles to succeed his mother than they wanted William to succeed, a change from the last poll taken when William left university.

It's not just this forum where the positive attitude to Camilla is noted, the British tabloids have soften as well. Particular of note is The Daily Mail which was very vitriolic, still some negative stories but generally most stories on Camilla have been reasonably positive. The editors have obviously picked up on the general public's softening attitude and it's reflected in the spin they put on their stories about her.

 

[scooter]

1000 people in a random sample, should be fairly representitive within the sampling margin for error which is usually + or - 5 points. Even with a 5 point boost, I think we have to agree, whether 9%, 28% or 17%, that is decided less than tepid enthusiasim for the idea of Queen Camilla, well below the level of support for George Bush after 8 years of Iraq,etc.

 

[Elspeth]

Did that poll have anything to say about whether people felt strongly enough about Queen Camilla to abandon support for the monarchy in principle as a result? This business about people becoming republicans simply because of the situation and personality of the next two people in line to the throne is what I'm asking about.

 

[Sonjapearl]

I think its too early to say William will be a lousy King. He's still young, and hasn't taken much public roles. While I think having him in the RAF for several years will be good for him personally, as a future King, his people will see less of him and wouldn't know what to think of him as a King. Somehow, William has to divide his time between the RAF and being a royal.

 

[ysbel]

It's not just this forum where the positive attitude to Camilla is noted, the British tabloids have soften as well. Particular of note is The Daily Mail which was very vitriolic, still some negative stories but generally most stories on Camilla have been reasonably positive. The editors have obviously picked up on the general public's softening attitude and it's reflected in the spin they put on their stories about her.

Yeah, I've noticed that in the Daily Mail too. I know some people had claimed earlier that their comments favorable to Camilla had been deleted from the DM articles but I haven't seen that recently. It quite surprised me.

We'll just have to see what the situation is like when Charles becomes King. There are a lot of things going on for the monarchy and in Britain in general and a lot of it doesn't have to do with Charles and Camilla. A lot of factors totally unrelated to their personal lives could influence whether or not she is crowned Queen and they could influence the decision to crown her as well as not crown her.

 

[scooter]

Did that poll have anything to say about whether people felt strongly enough about Queen Camilla to abandon support for the monarchy in principle as a result? This business about people becoming republicans simply because of the situation and personality of the next two people in line to the throne is what I'm asking about.

I would be shocked if there was a poll in the field that specific;never mind one that would introduce the idea of abandoning support of the monarchy as a result of Camilla being queen. That's a Pandora's Box for Charles, Camilla, Etc. Not a door they want to open with the media. Would you approve of Camilla as Queen is about as close as you can get, IMO.

 

[Charlotte1]

I would be shocked if there was a poll in the field that specific;never mind one that would introduce the idea of abandoning support of the monarchy as a result of Camilla being queen. That's a Pandora's Box for Charles, Camilla, Etc. Not a door they want to open with the media. Would you approve of Camilla as Queen is about as close as you can get, IMO.

Over the years there have been continuous polls on support for a republic and the abolition of the monarchy. Not the newspaper yougov polls but there more serious political ones. Support for a republic continues to remain low, under 10%, there was a rise for a republic at the time of Diana's death, it went up to 12% ( not exactly the 'bringing the monarchy to its knees" that people like to make in unsupported sweeping statements about) At the time of Charles and Camilla's wedding there was no rise in support for a republic. ( Interesting the strongest push and support for the abolition of the monarchy was actually in Queen Victoria's reign in the 10 years after Albert's death when she completely withdrew from public life)
Unlike Edward VIII who was given his ultimatum by the government Charles ( and Camilla) have the support of all the major British political parties. The Labour Party, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats all supported the marriage and issued statements to that effect. In the past there have been very vocal anti-monarchists in parliament ( the most famous Willie Hamilton who greeted the news of William's birth in 1982 with the word "another parasite to feed' and called the Queen a 'clockwork doll') The strongest amount of anti-monarchist agitation was in the 1960s and 70s, vocal protests against the Queen in Wales, riot police at Charles's investiture at POW besides Willie Hamilton another member of parliament Tony Benn also campaigned on anti-monarchist lines. He pushed for but didn't succeed in removed the Queen's profile from British stamps.
Currently there are no vocal anti-monarchist MPs, the republican movement is tiny, there are no street protests against the monarchy ( or even Camilla) The monarchy is more stable and popular than it has been for decades.
So while there are negative stories in the press from time to time, it's not reflected in the political arena which is really where abolition of the monarchy or abdication of a monarch comes from.
And as I pointed out before the Camilla for Queen idea has time, unlike a president who has time limits to his or her popularity upswing, a royal is in the job for life. The Queen is in good health, she'll be around for a good more years, younger people don't know the Camilla story ( a recent bit of advertising in a bookshop in the UK made me laugh. A copy of Tina Brown's book the Diana Chronicles had the sign 'a gift for your grandmother' The Diana story has already been consigned to the old and history!)

 

[Charlotte1]

Did that poll have anything to say about whether people felt strongly enough about Queen Camilla to abandon support for the monarchy in principle as a result? This business about people becoming republicans simply because of the situation and personality of the next two people in line to the throne is what I'm asking about.

No it was a simple populist poll, asking 'do you think Camilla should be Queen?'
There was no 'if there is a Queen Camilla will you abandon support for the monarchy?'

Yougov did another poll just before Charles's 60th it was 'do you support Charles becoming King instead of skipping over to William?" ( or words to that effect!) 54% ( a rise from 40 something% the last time this question was asked) said Charles should be King
Other question "do you think William should be King instead of Charles when the Queen dies" 43% down from over 50% last time this question was asked in the previous poll.
( many don't care one way or the other, that also registered as part of the poll)

 

[Warren]

Fortunately for us all, opinion polls taken in 2007 or today will not be the determinant of events a decade or so in the future.

On this board, there is a very vocal Camilla Claque. That is not neccessarily a reflection of the rest of the population

Scooter, I doubt that anyone has claimed the members of The Royal Forums are a reflection of anything, let alone "the rest of the population."

...where quite a few of us either get deleted or banned.

As Elspeth has previously replied, "nonsense".

 

[Mermaid1962]

And in a constitutional monarchy such as Britain has, it's really impossible for a king or queen to be "lousy" in any case. Ultimate authority lies with Parliament.

I think its too early to say William will be a lousy King. He's still young, and hasn't taken much public roles. While I think having him in the RAF for several years will be good for him personally, as a future King, his people will see less of him and wouldn't know what to think of him as a King. Somehow, William has to divide his time between the RAF and being a royal.

 

[muriel]

I'm bumping this thread because I'm getting a bit alarmed at what I'm reading around the British forum.

Far as I can gather, there are a few members here who are still so disgusted with Charles and Camilla for having an affair while married/hurting Diana/getting married that they're going to become republicans at the end of this reign. There are also some (and this seems, worryingly, to be an increasing number) who see Charles as the last monarch in the Windsor tradition and are writing William off as a self-absorbed spoiled rich kid, and are going to become republicans at the end of Charles's reign. Many of our posters from Canada and Australia are ready to cut loose from the monarchy at the end of the present reign.

Erm - do we have any members here who see themselves as monarchists in the long term? Or are we really looking at a severe erosion of support for the monarchy which will play itself out in two acts and leave William as an irrelevant and unpopular king?

I think you are right in that often, the discussion on TRF ends up not being representative of society at large. But that is the very nature of the medium. There are a few posters who may read the odd tabloid, and accept and espouse (quiet repeatedly) what is written as the gospel truth. Often a more independent and less biased poster is left with no option but to to let the eye of the storm pass before saying anything.

I remain a firm monarchist, albeit one that is aware of some of the challenges that lie ahead. I think some of the challenges ahead include:

1) Making William and his wife "relevant" after they enter royal duties on a full time basis. It took Charles a while to identify the causes he wanted to adopt, and I am sure it will take William and his wife some time to do so. They will need good guidance along the way, and they will have the example of Charles in front of them!

2) It was a very interesting idea that was thrashed around the press a few weeks ago about Charles being a bit more outspoken when he is King. I think the time may have come for the next monarch to be providing a degree of thought leadership to the nation. Beloved as the Queen may be, and whilst she has been competent and consistent at her job, she can't really be accused of providing intellectual capital to the thought process of the nation. I hope Charles as King will be able to do this, within the confines of the constitutional restrictions placed on him, and in the process of doing so, will strengthen the monarchy.

3) Making Camilla acceptable to be Queen. I think they have made a lot of good progress along the way, but I think further work needs to be done in one key area. Camilla is still perceived to be lazy, whether it is true or not. She needs to firmly establish herself in the minds of the public as a passionate supporter of the causes she has chosen to support, and as a hard working royal. I am not sure she is doing enough in this regard, eg, I think she should have travelled to Indonesia.

 

[Warren]

The posts discussing the Queen's role in Canada have been moved to the Queen and Canada thread.

 

[NotAPretender]

I
As a woman who has taken the name of my husband on marriage, I think that to deny her the title that goes with being the wife of the King means denying the right of ALL women to take the title, style and rank of their husband.

That was already done, in 1936, with the full support of the present Queen's mother and father.

Clarence House has already said that she would be Princess Consort, just as she is now Duchess of Cornwall. Are you suggesting that Clarence House is deliberately misleading us on the matter? Because that would be very wrong of them to do, duplicitous in fact.

 

[Skydragon]

There are also some (and this seems, worryingly, to be an increasing number) who see Charles as the last monarch in the Windsor tradition and are writing William off as a self-absorbed spoiled rich kid, and are going to become republicans at the end of Charles's reign. Many of our posters from Canada and Australia are ready to cut loose from the monarchy at the end of the present reign.

Erm - do we have any members here who see themselves as monarchists in the long term? Or are we really looking at a severe erosion of support for the monarchy which will play itself out in two acts and leave William as an irrelevant and unpopular king?

I expect I am one of the disillusioned with the younger royals, but would hate to see the monarchy fail because of some of the antics they pull. Charles and Camilla may restore the way the RF are seen but only if William and Harry knuckle down and perhaps CH stops it's spin and credits the British public with some intelligence.

I accept some prefer to see the RF as shining knights, especially on here, but more and more people 'in real life' seem to be 'seeing' them in a less glorious light. 'Where there's smoke there's fire', seems to be used by many more whenever they hit the headlines, and lets face it the whole array cannot be wrong all of the time.

This forum couldn't be seen as representing British society at large as the majority of active posters are not members of said society and it tends to be only those with an active interest who post on here. Those that ridicule the media stories are condemned for it, as are those who believe the story may have substance.

Although I support the monarchy, I think it is an impossibility to say I will support them regardless.

 

[wbenson]

Clarence House has already said that she would be Princess Consort, just as she is now Duchess of Cornwall.

Those are not analogous situations. She is the Duchess of Cornwall. She will not be the Princess Consort without an Act of Parliament. In the former case, she is using a title she is fully entitled to use (Diana also occasionally used it); in the latter, she would be using a title she does not have (although I don't think that will stop them if they're determined to do it).

Are you suggesting that Clarence House is deliberately misleading us on the matter?

I think they kind of botched the whole announcement of the marriage. They seemed not to have done some of the most cursory research about legalities (like where a civil wedding ceremony can take place).

 

[scooter]

That was already done, in 1936, with the full support of the present Queen's mother and father.

Clarence House has already said that she would be Princess Consort, just as she is now Duchess of Cornwall. Are you suggesting that Clarence House is deliberately misleading us on the matter? Because that would be very wrong of them to do, duplicitous in fact.

I think to a certain degree that Charles and the Mark Bolland spin meisters were being disingenuous, as evidenced by the recent polling. I personally think that if Charles had come out and said 'Yes, I'm going to marry Camilla and she's going to be Princess of Wales and Queen', there would have been far more opposition to the marriage. By having a 'soft opening' and the whole tap dance about Duchess of Cornwall and Princess Consort, they get to test the waters of opinion and hope that in the coming years opposition to Queen Camilla will die down. I would like to take Charles at his word, but my impression of him over the years is that he feels he is totally entitled and justified in doing or having anything he wants (thank you QEQM). On the other hand, as far as the wife taking the style of the husband, the House of Windsor capriciously witheld HRH from the previously divorced Duchess of Windsor, so the prescedent has been set.

 

[MARG]

. . . . . . On the other hand, as far as the wife taking the style of the husband, the House of Windsor capriciously witheld HRH from the previously divorced Duchess of Windsor, so the prescedent has been set.

Hmm . . . Camilla the Princess Consort? No HRH? I Don't think so!

 

[scooter]

Hmm . . . Camilla the Princess Consort? No HRH? I Don't think so!

I wasnt saying that they would remove Camilla's HRH. Simply that the prescedent has been set in the BRF (through the Duke and Duchess of Windsor) that the wife does not ALWAYS take the husband's style. Just as, for example, the children of TRH Edward and Sophie do not have their parent's rank.

 

[Skydragon]

Just as, for example, the children of TRH Edward and Sophie do not have their parent's rank.

Louise is HRH Princess Louise of Wessex, they simply choose not to use it. James is legally HRH Prince James of Wessex.

 

[Warren]

This thread is for discussion of "The Monarchy after Elizabeth II"; it is not the place to rehash the already exhausted topic of Camilla's title.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums moderator

 

[Marino01]

What Will Happen When The Queen Dies

I feel when the Queen dies we will see some big changes. Not only will Charles become King, but the public will finally see if Camilla will become Queen. Although I might not like Camilla, Charles does love her, and Willian and Harry seem to get along with her. I think time has healed some wounds and hopefully Camillia can be crowned as Queen.

But that is just my opinion. What's yours?

 

[Incas]

There's been plenty of discussion in Prince of Wales' thread:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/will-charles-ever-reign-part-5-a-15795.html

 

[Menarue]

The first thing that will happen is that she will be given a State Funeral then buried.

 

[wbenson]

The first thing that will happen is that she will be given a State Funeral then buried.

Before that, the new King will be proclaimed after a meeting of the Accession Council.

 

[Menarue]

May this time be long coming.

 

[Royal Fan]

wonder what name he will use?

 

[Menarue]

Prince Charles once said that Charles II was one, if not, his favourite King so I doubt he will be anything else, if all goes well, than Charles III.

 

[wbenson]

I think that if he is planning to use George, he should have started using that as his public name decades ago. He is, in everyone's mind, Charles. He could call himself Zilgaglax XXXVI if he wanted, and people will still call him Charles.

Edit: Now that I think about it, he might be able to pull off a name change (although I don't think he will). His grandfather even picked his own brother's name and that didn't seem to confuse people, although Charles has been Charles for much longer than George VI was Albert.

 

[tommy1716]

Reading the comments about why there is a need to limit the number of HRH's around i was reminded of Robert's Lacey's book "Royal" when he quotes a palace aide as saying:
"The problem with all the HRHs is that immediately you are called HRH, you are given police protection. You come to expect top security coverage...The Queen was driving back from Windsor one Monday when she got stuck in traffic coming through Hyde Park. She was sitting there quietly in the traffic jam, when suddenly there was a screaming of sirens and a Rolls-Royce with motorcycle escorts came speeding past her on the wrong side of the road. She looked out, and there was Princess Michael of Kent."

This highlights that even if HRHs do not receive civil list payments etc they do receive protection as with the HRH status comes the inherent risk security wise. As others have pointed out there is also the possibility of an HRH being involved in some embarrassing situation or another.

 

[scooter]

Was it not the Sun King who said 'Apres mois, le deluge'? QEII, (as well as her parents and grandparents) has been England's shining sun for 70 years. Never setting a foot wrong, always an example. The POW and his future 'Queen or Princess COnsort' whatever they ar calling her this week, not so much. JMO, but there is a large population of Britain who feels the same way, although this is not refelected in the demographics of TRF, who are overwhelmingly pro Charles and Camilla. It will be interesting to see what happens when The Queen dies.