The Monarchy under Charles

[Roslyn]

There are only four HRHs in the second generation anyway and only two who can pass it on. In the next generation, if this next child is a girl, then there will only be one to pass it on - George.

In light of the significant changes made by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, new Letters Patent are needed as the current version discriminates in favour of sons and is inconsistent with the Act. The current Letters Patent assume the monarch's heir will be Prince of Wales and they discriminate against children of the daughters of the monarch. The HRH style should be limited to the children of the monarch and the oldest living child of the monarch's first-born child. Or, perhaps, to the children of the monarch and the children of the monarch's first-born child, and then the oldest living child of the monarch's first-born child.

 

[padams2359]

Without the opening of parliament, the regalia would only be worn for coronations. As the queen has said, she is not fond of jewelry, but it is there, and should be seen. The LP of 1917 will still work, and due to the fact the queen had no brothers, and most of the grandchildren out of the direct line of succession are girls, role will be slimmed down greatly by the time William is king. James will be the equivalent of the Duke of Kent. Slimming down the royals will be the least of Charles's worries. He may modify how they are supported, but he will not need to strip anyone

 

[Jacknch]

Then the State Opening won't be worth watching.

On a serious note we are losing so much tradition as it. I don't want anymore traditions lost. Part of wonders of civilizations is it's colourful events. It's shame that in the 21st Century we are reverting back to informal cavemen times.

Indeed, and we would only have Prinsjesdag left for a bit of pomp and glamour! The State Opening of Parliament has already been tinkered about with for no good reason!

I agree that many traditions are being lost and mostly because of so-called modernising rather than for genuine improvement.

The thing that I like about the monarchy is that it can adapt and change of it's own accord, naturally and over a manageable length of time. The issue with the number of HRHs will resolve itself in due course.

I think that Charles will make changes as and when events or issues come up and we will get the measure of what sorts of things might change when we see what the Coronation is like.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Does anyone truly believe that Charles will not want Harry's children to be HRH's? That isn't on.

The children of Prince Edward are not HRH's either, at least not in daily use. The children of Princess Margaret and Princess Anne are not HRH's either, of course this has to do with their non-male lineage descent but all of them are grandsons and granddaughters of a Sovereign. So it is not that shocking new.

Note that we are only discussing theoretic situations. Other monarchies have already modernized. Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, Norway, etc. all have grandsons/granddaughters of the Sovereign who are not a HRH at all. In Spain they are treated as a Grande de España without title with the prefix Excellency. In the Netherlands they are Count (Countess) van Oranje-Nasssau van Amsberg with the prefix Highborn Lord (Lady). In Norway Sverre Magnus has the title 'Prince' but no any prefix and no any designation (not "of Norway"). So it is visible that many countries are coping with the wish to limit the Royal House and all do it in their own way.

 

[ladongas]

With all respect to the various European (and other) royal families, I don't believe that they attract visitors to their countries. The pomp and circumstance of the BRF is (said to be, anyway) an important aspect of tourism to the UK, and if the grandeur is down-sized, so might the tourism be, also.

 

[tommy100]

I don't think limiting HRH's takes away from the grandeur of the monarchy at all, are you telling me the tourists who come from america, japan etc wouldn't come if the Kents, Gloucesters etc didn't have HRH titles?

To be honest if Charles limits HRH titles any money savings will go towards even more splendour around those Royals left, he's shown he likes a grand staff and grand entertaining I think we can safely say under Charles the monarchy will only become even more grand!

 

[Osipi]

With all respect to the various European (and other) royal families, I don't believe that they attract visitors to their countries. The pomp and circumstance of the BRF is (said to be, anyway) an important aspect of tourism to the UK, and if the grandeur is down-sized, so might the tourism be, also.

The first example that comes to my mind is how many people make it a point, when traveling to the UK, to make sure to see the changing of the Guards at Buckingham Palace or try and make one of those stone faced guards twitch or giggle. I'm sure the palace guards could be done away with as, if I'm correct, they're more ceremonial than actually security for the Queen and palace but the pomp and pageantry and the traditional uniforms is quite a mainstay to see while in London. I think its basically the same with the opening of Parliament and Trooping the Color and seeing the Royal Family at Ascot. I don't see Charles even thinking about changing any of this at all and I'd be willing to bet that he might even think on reviving some of the traditions that may have been put aside over the years. He is astute enough to know that not only is the Royal Family quite visible to the UK and Commonwealth but also have quite a global following.

 

[tommy100]

I don't think Charles will ditch any of the events there are now but he may tweak with them a little. Wasn't it said (and yes let's take it with a pinch of salt) that he wanted to make more of investitures my inviting those getting an honour to stay for drinks or lunch after. That would be a nice touch to me and wouldn't take away from the event at all!

 

[Spheno]

I don't think Charles will ditch any of the events there are now but he may tweak with them a little. Wasn't it said (and yes let's take it with a pinch of salt) that he wanted to make more of investitures my inviting those getting an honour to stay for drinks or lunch after. That would be a nice touch to me and wouldn't take away from the event at all!

and would cost more

 

[Osipi]

and would cost more

Perhaps. I do like the idea and think it would make it so much more special for those being invested. For so many, its an event of a lifetime and adding a small get together with drinks or maybe lunch would make it all the more memorable.

 

[tommy100]

I don't think drinks and a chance to meet a few of the Royals would drastically increase the cost.

 

[Spheno]

I don't think drinks and a chance to meet a few of the Royals would drastically increase the cost.

More than 2000 people have been recognised in the list every year + recipients invites 3 guests = 9000 people every year
10 £/person = 90 000 £ per year

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think limiting HRH's takes away from the grandeur of the monarchy at all, are you telling me the tourists who come from america, japan etc wouldn't come if the Kents, Gloucesters etc didn't have HRH titles?

To be honest if Charles limits HRH titles any money savings will go towards even more splendour around those Royals left, he's shown he likes a grand staff and grand entertaining I think we can safely say under Charles the monarchy will only become even more grand!

There wouldn't be any savings from doing away with HRHs as they don't get any money now for simply being an HRH.

Security is determined by Scotland Yard on the basis of need and not on the basis of title.

If there are only four or six royals doing royal duties they will have to do more and so the costs will still be there - as they will need more staff concentrated in fewer offices but no savings from the monarch's private income as those costs aren't paid for from the Sovereign Grant anyway.

 

[tommy100]

Well thats why I said "any savings". Clearly they don't get money simply by being HRH's (even if the Daily Mail tries to say otherwise) but I imagine less royals would mean a saving (the Queen pays their official costs so Charles would save that, there would also be less people doing duties so potentially a decrease in travel costs) even if that is then spent elsewhere on more staff. My point is still that Charles seems to like entertaining (at the least) on a grand scale so I think the grandeur of the monarchy will definitely not lessen in his reign.

 

[Mbruno]

Indeed, and we would only have Prinsjesdag left for a bit of pomp and glamour! The State Opening of Parliament has already been tinkered about with for no good reason!

I agree that many traditions are being lost and mostly because of so-called modernising rather than for genuine improvement.

The thing that I like about the monarchy is that it can adapt and change of it's own accord, naturally and over a manageable length of time. The issue with the number of HRHs will resolve itself in due course.

I think that Charles will make changes as and when events or issues come up and we will get the measure of what sorts of things might change when we see what the Coronation is like.

I am clearly in the minority here, but I don't see any point in wearing a heavy crown covered in diamonds to the opening of parliament. It is anachronic, slightly kitsch and may be even offensive to sections of the population. No other European monarch is currently crowned or wears a crown, but that in no way takes away from the pomp and glamor of royal houses such as those of the Netherlands, Denmark or Sweden.

On the more serious issue of constitutional reform, I hail the 1974 Swedish Instrument of Government as the model for what a 21st-century European monarchy should look like. What is the point of keeping the fiction that the Queen has any discretion to appoint the government, issue executive orders, or sanction laws when we know that she merely rubber-stamps government decisions ? The Swedish model strikes the right balance: the government alone rules the country (subject to the confidence of the elected parliament), but must keep the King informed about the affairs of the realm, either by informal audiences with individual ministers or regular, formal councils of State, where the King can exercise his legitimate right to advise and warn.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If you really believe that The Queen doesn't influence the government you are mistaken. She can refuse to sign legislation and has been known to express her mind on that issue to the point where the legislation wasn't even put.


How the Swedes wish to run their country is their business. The British system works and it works well because the Queen can say 'no'. The Queen IS part of the system and a very real part - not a fictional part.


That she hasn't refused to give her assent doesn't change the fact that she can do so - it is just that she lets them know in advance.


She also has a major role to play in the appointing of PM and that could easily come into play next month when the possibility of a hung parliament may need for her to actually act as the discussion point between the competing parties or her advice may be sought over a particular candidate.


There is NO perfect way for a constitutional monarchy to work and they are all different.


As for the pomp and glamour - the BRF have only three 'glamour' events a year - the two incoming State Visits and one State Opening of Parliament. So removing that would remove one-third of the glamourous events from the BRF.


Just because the others don't crown their monarchs should in no way mean that the British should do away with a coronation and a crown.


Each one works for them and the BRF does the big ceremonial brilliantly - there are many people who remember the 1953 Coronation as the greatest ceremony of their lives and others are looking forward to seeing a similar event in their lifetime - with all the glitz and glamour but in the meantime there is only the State Opening to give a modicum of an idea - it is the only time that The Queen is seen wearing her crown each year and it is lovely to see her wear it. What would bee the point of having a crown if one can never wear it?

 

[royal-blue]

My point about limiting or reducing the number of people with HRH titles is nothing to do with the cost. To me it seems anachronistic for so many people to be granted the title of Prince or Princess just because they are related to the head of state. The Queen's royal cousins for example, are in my opinion, no more important than any other citizen. They are grandchildren of a former head of state, but I don't see why they should still be treated with such reverence.

Likewise, Beatrice and Eugenie are merely the grandchildren of the current head of state, with virtually no chance of becoming Queen themselves, so I see no difference between them and anyone else.

It is completely old fashioned for titles to be inherited at all. With the exception of the monarch and their children, I would like to see all other titles earned rather than given at birth/marriage.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

With all respect to the various European (and other) royal families, I don't believe that they attract visitors to their countries. The pomp and circumstance of the BRF is (said to be, anyway) an important aspect of tourism to the UK, and if the grandeur is down-sized, so might the tourism be, also.

I don't think that the number of HRH's in a country is a decisive factor to visit a country or not. There are no HRH's anymore in a formal capacity in France, in Austria, in Russia, in Germany. But all these cities are overflooded with tourists. They are queuing in front of the Château de Versailles near Paris, Schloß Schönbrunn near Vienna, the Hermitage (former Winter Palace) in St Petersburg or Schloß Sans-Souci near Berlin...




Speaking about grandeur.

Welcome in the capital of my republic: http://spectacle-verdun.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/VISUEL-GARDE-REPU.jpg


Welcome to the President of the Italian republic: http://www.ilpost.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AP428991491411.jpg

 

[Roslyn]

Good points. We all have our own reasons for our decisions to visit a particular country, but in my case the fact the UK currently has Royals would have little, if any, bearing on my decision to visit the UK. It is the historical sites and buildings that I would want to see, and the places my forebears lived, and the evidence of Roman Britain and Gothic churches, etc., and the countryside. These are the same sorts of things that would draw me to other countries, too. I suppose some of the people who want to see the Changing of the Guard and other such stuff, i.e. evidence of the monarchy still functioning, might be less inclined to visit London if that stopped, but I don't think that would be very many people. Big ticket events like major Royal weddings do probably account for a lot of visitors but they are only occasional.

 

[VictoriaB]

I suppose some of the people who want to see the Changing of the Guard and other such stuff, i.e. evidence of the monarchy still functioning, might be less inclined to visit London if that stopped, but I don't think that would be very many people.

Even if Britain were to become a republic there's no need for the ceremonial to stop. As Duc et Pair shows in his post, France has maintained its ceremonial. It could just change from being a Royal ceremonial to a Presidential one.

I hope Britain doesn't become a republic but, if it did, the connection with a Royal past would remain (as it has in European countries that are republics). Tourists would still visit for that reason.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[MARG]

I am clearly in the minority here, but I don't see any point in wearing a heavy crown covered in diamonds to the opening of parliament. It is anachronic, slightly kitsch and may be even offensive to sections of the population. No other European monarch is currently crowned or wears a crown, but that in no way takes away from the pomp and glamor of royal houses such as those of the Netherlands, Denmark or Sweden.

It is the Current State of the UK and while you may believe it anachronistic and kitsch, I fail to see how it could be offensive to parts of the population. What happens in European Monarchies is a result of each individual country's history, which, not surprisingly, is not the history of the UK.

On the more serious issue of constitutional reform, I hail the 1974 Swedish Instrument of Government as the model for what a 21st-century European monarchy should look like. What is the point of keeping the fiction that the Queen has any discretion to appoint the government, issue executive orders, or sanction laws when we know that she merely rubber-stamps government decisions ? The Swedish model strikes the right balance: the government alone rules the country (subject to the confidence of the elected parliament), but must keep the King informed about the affairs of the realm, either by informal audiences with individual ministers or regular, formal councils of State, where the King can exercise his legitimate right to advise and warn.

While it is quite admirable that you are knowledgeable about the history of the Swedish monarchy, unfortunately, you are not quite so knowledgeable about the UK Monarchy and the BRF. In point of fact, I don't believe HM actually owns a "rubber stamp".

Regardless, it is pointless to draw comparisons between the two monarchies. The Swedish are Swedish and the British are British. Each have their own history.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Provided we get a new Royal Yacht when Charles comes to the throne, I don't mind what changes Charles makes...

I agree! I think it's a shame that the Royal Yacht was decommissioned and no new Royal Yacht was supplied, since being shipboard was clearly something the Queen dearly loved. I think that loss is very sad. Have always thought that.

There are only four HRHs in the second generation anyway and only two who can pass it on. In the next generation, if this next child is a girl, then there will only be one to pass it on - George. I can't really see Kate having a third child given the sickness she has suffered with these two

I'm sorry to hear that. I have had high hopes for 3 royal babies, at least, or even 4.

and the increasing chances that by the time a third comes her role will need to be greater due to the age and clear frailty of The Queen. She was fairly unsteady on her feet at the Afghanistan Service, very slow and even needed a helping hand down the stairs. I have many friends that age who are like that and they are frail ladies - determined ones but still frail and slowing down.

I've seen that fragility (or so I have thought) for some time now. But perhaps it's accentuated? I confess I haven't really been paying attention to the Queen these days. She is of that age. To be expected. Time is passing.

 

[royal-blue]

I am against the idea of a new royal yacht,

Charles will have a big challenge on his hands to maintain high approval ratings when he becomes king, at least initially, so he should keep the public's opinion in mind, particularly concerning value for money and sense of entitlement/extravagance, which the Queen has kept at bay.

 

[COUNTESS]

If HM wanted a yacht she should have purchased one. She can afford anything she wants. No reason for taxpayers to pay for it.

 

[Mermaid1962]

The yacht wasn't just the Queen's personal ship. It was also used for trade events and could be outfitted as a hospital ship. Plus, during the Cold War, the plan was to have it sheltered in Scotland and have the Crown operate from there in case of a nuclear explosion.

 

[VictoriaB]

The yacht wasn't just the Queen's personal ship. It was also used for trade events and could be outfitted as a hospital ship. Plus, during the Cold War, the plan was to have it sheltered in Scotland and have the Crown operate from there in case of a nuclear explosion.

I seem to recall this was a bone of contention during the Falklands War. Ordinary commercial liners were used as hospital ships but the Brittania was not suitable.

But maybe I just recall reading this in the Guardian or another less royal friendly paper.

 

[Jacknch]

I think we can safely say that there will be no new royal yacht under Charles' reign - my post was in jest and so maybe we should move the discussion on!

 

[muriel]

I think we can safely say that there will be no new royal yacht under Charles' reign - my post was in jest and so maybe we should move the discussion on!

Absolutely! Charles is no fool, and a royal yacht is hardly a priority.

 

[Mermaid1962]

It was during the height of the Cold War as well. There could have been a feeling that the Britannia might be needed for the reason that I mentioned in the above post. The Cold War was pretty much over by around 1990, and we forget just how dangerous and nerve-wracking those times were.

I seem to recall this was a bone of contention during the Falklands War. Ordinary commercial liners were used as hospital ships but the Brittania was not suitable.

But maybe I just recall reading this in the Guardian or another less royal friendly paper.

 

[Osipi]

If I'm remembering right, the use of Brittania was very much an asset for the monarch to visit far away places back in its day. With air travel a faster way to travel and more convenient, the necessity of tours and such in the Brittania has faded into the background of a time long gone.

I think while Charles is King, we're going to possibly see his influence and focus more on the same things he is passionate about now while staying within boundaries of not meddling politically. Sustainability and the welfare of the people, the land and the future. Causes and campaigns for the family will gradually be on a global level such as is being done now with the United for Wildlife campaign. With the ease of access of information on just about anything on a global basis, it wouldn't surprise me to see the monarchy present itself in a global impacting way and with that happening, I think keeping the traditions and pomp and circumstance intact would be an asset as it defines UK history. To have the past at hand and the future in their goals, I think it would make for a well balanced monarchy.