The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2321  
Old 04-03-2016, 10:39 PM
LadyRohan's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Sweden, Slovenia
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Some folks think like this, because it's hard for some to picture the monarchy going on after Elizabeth II. Her reign has gone on for so long, she's the only person people are used to leading the grand old institution.
There is always a sense of anticipation and uncertainty in a monarchy when a long reign draws to a close. The same happened in Norway in 1991 when the late King Olav V passed away, and in Sweden in 1972 a majority of the elected politicians wanted to abolish the monarchy altogether, at the passing of the old King. This however, is a natural sentiment expressed in most countries by a majority of people at times of substantial change; it's inherently something we do not enjoy. The factors that we always miss however, is that the sadness and affection felt at the loss of an appreciated monarch, is always partly transferred to the heir, whom we usually realize is more than our new sovereign, but who is also a grieving child who has just lost a parent. That tends to give the new monarch a softer transitition into the new role, and people feeling more sympathy and affection.

We often judge before a fact comes to be, based on the past of a person or past events, but when things actually happen, we tend to be far less critical and more embracing than we might have expected beforehand.

When it comes to predictions given and judgments passed, I always tend to find them a lot more interesting, pertinent and unbiased when they come from people who manage to show slightly more distance to the subject matter than someone who has been a republican voice of whinge and discontent for decades. I think we might all do well to remember where such opinions come from, and that the sourness with which it is given, can usually be traced to being nowhere nearer a republic in the UK (or UR, should she get her way) than when she started her crusade.

Facts are firmly behind the monarchy. The Royal Family as a whole enjoys very favourable levels of support and there is no evidence to support a thesis that after the demise of the Queen, the throne will be abolished. Look to Australia for further evidence, the monarchy has seen a steady rise in its support for the past 10 years following the failed referendum to abolish the institution altogether, with many surveys ascribing much of the rise to the popularity of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and Prince Harry, the future generations.

Lastly, with the predictions that 'as old people die, support will drop', this lady makes the most common mistake of them all, forgetting the laws of nature. More often than not, young people tend to grow older as well, and when they do, they're often more in favour of preserving the things worth preserving, the common things that link our past to our tomorrow.

That is what the monarchy does, and that is the affection that will one day meet the Prince of Wales in his new role as King. As a child of his highly respected mother, and a King of realms across the globe.
__________________

__________________
"He who has never failed to reach perfection, has a right to be the harshest critic" - Queen Elizabeth II
Reply With Quote
  #2322  
Old 04-04-2016, 07:07 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,385
Quote:
Dr Anna Whitelock is an early modern history don at London University. I don't know about her early modern history – but she's certainly not much good at modern history.

She's just said that, by 2030, the monarchy could be on its last legs; that the popularity of the monarchy is linked to the Queen, not the institution itself.

Zero out of ten, Dr Whitelock. You have just got what we used to call a Douglas – a Douglas Hurd/third – for your understanding of the relationship between the monarchy and the British people.

There are perfectly good arguments for being a republican – and, if you were starting a new country now, who would set up a hereditary ruling system? It hasn't worked too well with the Assad clan in Syria, has it?

But the monarchy has worked for 1,000 years in this country. We have grown not just used to it, but are deeply attached to it. The handover from an extremely popular Queen to a slightly less popular son – and, in turn, a very popular grandson – is not going to affect that attachment.

The monarchy has staggeringly high levels of approval: 80 per cent during the Diamond Jubilee Year of 2012. Even at the institution's least popular level in recent years - in 2005, at Prince Charles's wedding - approval ratings dipped to 65 per cent.

65 per cent! That's an approval rating David Cameron – or Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher – could only dream of.
Read more: There's nothing wrong with wanting to abolish the monarchy, just don't expect anyone to agree with you
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2323  
Old 04-04-2016, 10:08 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,422
It's going to take some adjustment and getting used to, but I think the future of the monarchy will do just fine under Charles and later William. They know how important it is to keep this grand old institution together and going.

There is some nervous people out there on how everything carry on without the constant presence of Elizabeth.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #2324  
Old 04-07-2016, 06:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,385
This will never happen and it goes against the hereditary principle

Charles is a serious, decent and admirable man. But he should renounce the throne in advance

Quote:
On 21 April Queen Elizabeth II marks her 90th birthday, the first of our reigning monarchs ever to do so, and it will be a very happy occasion, just as her Diamond Jubilee was in 2012.

Five years ago there had been a more sombre milestone for the queen’s eldest son, Charles, Prince of Wales. He passed the mark of 59 years spent as heir to the throne set by his great-great-grandfather, Victoria’s eldest son, the Prince of Wales who became King Edward VII in 1901.
Read more: To save the British monarchy, skip the Prince of Wales » The Spectator
Reply With Quote
  #2325  
Old 04-07-2016, 06:31 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,422
Why skip the heir that's most prepared? I think people really need to get over this anxiety on Charles taking over the monarchy. The man won't destroy it.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #2326  
Old 04-07-2016, 06:59 PM
JR76's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 903
As I wrote on Twitter "Impossible to take an article written by someone who thinks UK is ruled by The House of Hannover seriously"


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
Reply With Quote
  #2327  
Old 04-07-2016, 07:31 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,189
Historically, there was nervousness in Queen Victoria's twilight years about what sort of a King Edward would make. He settled very smoothly into the role.

However, I think some are foreseeing that, in a much less deferential age, Ministers of the Crown may tell Charles politely to cease interfering in any issue he feels strongly about. I know the sovereign has the right to (famously) be consulted, to encourage and to warn. However, there is a danger of a future clash with the Government if Charles feels strongly enough about a particular piece of legislation.

That is my one reservation about Charles (apart from lingering feelings about his first marriage.) He is a well-prepared and committed man and a hardworking one. Apart from this one thing, he will make a splendid King IMO.

As far as the reference to the House of Hanover goes, I think the writer was being facetious not ignorant.
Reply With Quote
  #2328  
Old 04-07-2016, 08:34 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,822
Well, if not for WWI it would be the House of Hanover. Like all the PR, it was another step to cover tracks. We, now that I think of it, it was the House of Saxe Coburg and Gotha.
Reply With Quote
  #2329  
Old 04-07-2016, 08:58 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Well, if not for WWI it would be the House of Hanover. Like all the PR, it was another step to cover tracks. We, now that I think of it, it was the House of Saxe Coburg and Gotha.
Queen Victoria was the last ruling monarch of the House of Hanover. When she married her Prince Albert, it was then it became the House of Saxe Coburg and Gotha.

So, in a way, it is correct to say that the House of Windsor stems from the House of Hanover from the matriarchal line from Victoria. I'm sure if I goofed up here somewhere, I'll be nicely corrected.

Actually, I don't really see much of a big uproar about things when Charles ascends the throne. He is more than ready to be King and will step into the role with ease. There will be more kerfluffle over Wills, Kate and Harry and how they are going to up their roles.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #2330  
Old 04-07-2016, 09:01 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,331
The Monarchy under Charles

It didn't actually switch to Saxe Coburg & Gotha until Edward VII came to throne. Victoria was a Hanover whole reign.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #2331  
Old 04-07-2016, 09:03 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Well, if not for WWI it would be the House of Hanover. Like all the PR, it was another step to cover tracks. We, now that I think of it, it was the House of Saxe Coburg and Gotha.
But that's only because that was Albert's House, and it changed because Victoria - the female Monarch - married him. I think the Hanover argument has wings and I'd give it a fly for a bit of fun to poke the stick at coverture again, especially since Elizabeth kept the (anglicised) name of her father's House when she'd married a Mountbatten, or should I say Battenberg.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #2332  
Old 04-07-2016, 10:10 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
But that's only because that was Albert's House, and it changed because Victoria - the female Monarch - married him. I think the Hanover argument has wings and I'd give it a fly for a bit of fun to poke the stick at coverture again, especially since Elizabeth kept the (anglicised) name of her father's House when she'd married a Mountbatten, or should I say Battenberg.

Victoria belonged to the House of Hanover - her father's house.

Edward VII belonged to the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, his father's house.

The Queen belongs to the House of Windsor, her father's House, and a cadet branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The Queen's male-line, paternal cousins and their male-line descendants also belong to this House, but the Queen's descendants do not.

The Duke of Edinburgh belongs to the House of Glücksburg, his father's House, which is a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg.

The male-line descendants of the Queen and DoE belong to the House of Windsor (or Mountbatten-Windsor), as a cadet branch of the House of Glücksburg.
Reply With Quote
  #2333  
Old 04-07-2016, 10:15 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
The Monarchy under Charles

I'd add too that the DoE isn't a Battenberg, nor was he ever.

He was born a Glücksburg. His mother was born a Battenberg, and her father and siblings became Mountbattens during the war (she never did, as she married before the name change). When the DoE gave up his Greek titles he took his maternal family's British sounding name because he needed a surname and didn't have one.
Reply With Quote
  #2334  
Old 04-07-2016, 10:35 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,422
I know people are worried about the controversy that hangs around Charles's neck, but he will be a more engaged King and I think people will get used to it over time.

The very exciting part is that the world will be getting a brand new Prince and Princess of Wales too. They will help the Charles and the new Princess Consort. Everything will work out and things will not fall apart after Elizabeth II.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #2335  
Old 04-07-2016, 10:43 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
The very exciting part is that the world will be getting a brand new Prince and Princess of Wales too. They will help the Charles and the new Princess Consort. Everything will work out and things will not fall apart after Elizabeth II.
It isn't a 100% given that when Charles becomes King that Will and Kate will become the Prince and Princess of Wales. That will be at Charles' discretion once he is King. Although I can't see any reason why he wouldn't, there's always the odd chance that Charles may not do this.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #2336  
Old 04-07-2016, 10:53 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
It isn't a 100% given that when Charles becomes King that Will and Kate will become the Prince and Princess of Wales. That will be at Charles' discretion once he is King. Although I can't see any reason why he wouldn't, there's always the odd chance that Charles may not do this.
Oh I have no doubt that Charles will invest William as the next Prince of Wales once he's King and Catherine will then go on to be the next Princess of Wales. William and Catherine are getting ready for these roles as we speak.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #2337  
Old 04-07-2016, 11:07 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Victoria belonged to the House of Hanover - her father's house.

Edward VII belonged to the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, his father's house.

The Queen belongs to the House of Windsor, her father's House, and a cadet branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The Queen's male-line, paternal cousins and their male-line descendants also belong to this House, but the Queen's descendants do not.

The Duke of Edinburgh belongs to the House of Glücksburg, his father's House, which is a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg.

The male-line descendants of the Queen and DoE belong to the House of Windsor (or Mountbatten-Windsor), as a cadet branch of the House of Glücksburg.
On the basis that this archaic notion of a person belonging to their father's House prevails, why, then, are the Queen's descendants members of the House of Windsor and not the house of Glucksburg, or Mountbatten?

BTW thanks for pointing out that Philip was never a Battenberg. I wasn't aware of that.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #2338  
Old 04-07-2016, 11:18 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,635
Here is the verbatim wording of the letters patent issued by HM, The Queen in regards to the name of the House and the name Mountbatten Windsor.

"My Lords
Whereas on the 9th day of April 1952, I did declare in Council My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor:
And whereas I have given further consideration to the position of those of My descendants who will enjoy neither the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness, nor the titluar dignity of Prince and for whom therefore a surname will be necessary:
And whereas I have concluded that the Declaration made by Me on the 9th day of April 1952, should be varied in its application to such persons:
Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #2339  
Old 04-07-2016, 11:22 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Oh I have no doubt that Charles will invest William as the next Prince of Wales once he's King and Catherine will then go on to be the next Princess of Wales. William and Catherine are getting ready for these roles as we speak.
William and Catherine are getting ready for the role of heir apparent and consort. That does not necessarily mean that they'll be Prince and Princess of Wales. For all we know the Welsh could ask that the title not be recreated for William - after all, the title is really a symbol of the English conquest of Wales and the decimation of the Welsh royalty.
Reply With Quote
  #2340  
Old 04-07-2016, 11:42 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Here is the verbatim wording of the letters patent issued by HM, The Queen in regards to the name of the House and the name Mountbatten Windsor.

"My Lords
Whereas on the 9th day of April 1952, I did declare in Council My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor:
And whereas I have given further consideration to the position of those of My descendants who will enjoy neither the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness, nor the titluar dignity of Prince and for whom therefore a surname will be necessary:
And whereas I have concluded that the Declaration made by Me on the 9th day of April 1952, should be varied in its application to such persons:
Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."
Yes, that is the reason. It required a decision to be made by Elizabeth to displace the tradition, and Letters Patent to put her desire into effect because it was not the norm. I have no doubt that Philip was very cheesed off about this, leading to his famous "I am nothing but a bloody amoeba" tantrum.

It is poorly worded though, and ambiguous. The literal meaning of the Letters Patent is that only those of her descendants who do not have the Royal style and title shall be known as Mountbatten-Windsor and that her children are of the Windsor family. But both Anne and Andrew signed their marriage register with the name Mountbatten-Windsor, probably to avoid a tantrum from their father. Their mother might have been the Monarch of the country and all those other realms, but they bowed to the feelings of their father rather than respecting their Queen's wishes, but I blame their mother because she chose to act as a wife rather than a Queen when it came to her husband. The variation to the 9th April LP only applied to descendants who do not have the Royal style & title. HM only did it to appease Philip. I've always felt she was weak-willed over that issue. If she wasn't going to stick to her guns, she should never have made the original declaration.
__________________

__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british, camilla, charles iii, charles of wales, coronation, crown jewels, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, queen camilla, titles, william v


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
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 309 10-31-2016 06:54 PM
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 392 10-16-2016 10:14 AM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 05:06 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events danish calendar duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece hereditary grand duchess stéphanie's fashion & style ingrid alexandra kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy movies new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania casual outfit royal fashion september 2016 sheikha moza state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:43 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises