The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   The Monarchy after Elizabeth II (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-monarchy-after-elizabeth-ii-11874.html)

ysbel 01-21-2007 08:35 PM

The Monarchy after Elizabeth II
 
The monarchy as an institution has undergone many changes in the last century and may be prepared to make many more to adapt and survive in changing times. A most appropriate time for change will come when the current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, passes away after more than 50 years on the throne and her successor takes the throne. It will be a time for the new King and the government to take stock and possibly make some significant changes to the state of the monarchy.

This thread is to discuss the broad changes you think the monarchy will undergo in the coming years and their possible effects on the institution and the country.

Possible changes include:
  • Smaller royal family with reduced titles for some
  • Cognatic primogeniture
  • Removal of the monarch as Head of the Church (separation btw Church and State)
  • Established provisions for divorces
  • Abolition of the monarchy in some Commonwealth countries
Feel free to introduce other areas where you think changes might be made in the future.

We're looking for discussion of broad systematic changes rather than those affecting a single individual: for example, a discussion of whether the wife of the British King should continue to be called a Queen rather a discussion of whether or not Camilla herself should be crowned Queen without any context of what happens to the consort's title beyond Camilla.

wbenson 01-22-2007 08:44 PM

I don't think cognatic primogeniture will become a priority until William or one of his heirs has a daughter as their first-born child. Even then, it won't be something most people worry about unless a subsequent child is a male.

I think it's inevitable that certain Commonwealth Realms (Australia, Barbados, Jamaica) will become republics, but I think that Canada, for instance, won't become one for quite a while, if ever. It's quite hard constitutionally to do it. The House of Commons, Senate, and legislatures of all 10 provinces must agree, which has never happened on any other issue.

yvr girl 01-22-2007 10:23 PM

I also don't think it's a hot-button issue in Canada. I don't see people clamouring to get rid of the crown.

I don't see the royal family getting that much smaller. Charles only has two children. It will be 20-25 years at least before they have children who are ready to take on a royal role.

The Queen's children are associated with many organizations. Some for long periods of time. I don't see them slowing down for a number of years.

In the next few years, the Kents and Glouceters will scale back I think. I'm not sure what kind of role Beatrice and Eugenie will take on.

Huddo 01-22-2007 10:28 PM

I think Australia will definatley become a Republic and I'll take a guess and say the Royal Family may become smaller maybe along the lines of the Dutch Monarchy.

Toledo 01-22-2007 10:56 PM

Of all the possible changes listed, my thoughts are that the separation of Church and State would be the very last one, if ever. I doubt the monarch would give up the leadership role in the church no more than the Pope would renounce the 'temporal' power the Church assumed centuries ago. Too much at stake to make it a quick political decision.

Sister Morphine 01-22-2007 10:59 PM

After reading about what the Norwegian RF family has done, in terms of scaling back the titles, I can see the British RF doing that somewhere along the line. As it stands, the monarch and his/her spouse, their children and the heir's spouse and eldest child all have the title HRH and that's it. Haakon and Mette-Marit's youngest child is just Prince Sverre Magnus.

I would like to see cognatic primogeniture make its way to England, as many other European monarchies have gone to that as well. Denmark probably would have if Fred and Mary had a daughter the first time around, but since their eldest is a boy, they have another generation yet to decide if it's what they want to do.

I think the monarch should NOT be the head of the Church, as I feel it disenfranchises a portion of the population and the sovereign is supposed to serve all his/her people, not just those who are Anglican. In doing this, I think we can finally see Catholics in the line of succession or maybe even on the throne. Catholics can be just as great a ruler as anyone else.

ZandraRae 01-22-2007 11:06 PM

I also see cognatic primogeniture in England's future. It is quite possible that William could have a daughter as a first-born, and if that happens, I am sure they would not wait around for a boy.

I agree with Sister Morphine on the fact that a monarch should not be the head of the Church, but as for a Catholic on the throne? The current queen would turn over in her grave when the time comes. lol

Elspeth 01-22-2007 11:11 PM

I think they should do whatever it takes to get rid of the anti-Catholic discrimination which requires people to be removed from the line of succession if they marry a Catholic. I understand the reasoning behind the requirement for the monarch to be a communicant of the established church, but I see no reason beyond tradition to dicriminate against Catholics while not applying the same standard to other religions.

Toledo 01-22-2007 11:11 PM

On scaling down in titles, maybe our British colleagues can tell us if my assumption is correct. I always viewed the British monarchy and the people of Britain as extremely fond of tradition, their history and sense of belonging. From the solemn Beefeaters to those pet crows they keep in the notorious Tower, everything has a reason to be and to be kept that way. At least that is my perception from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The monarchy itself seems to be part of that tradition and devotion for the past, after all, the British Royals can trace their roots to almost the very begining of history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
I think they should do whatever it takes to get rid of the anti-Catholic discrimination which requires people to be removed from the line of succession if they marry a Catholic. I understand the reasoning behind the requirement for the monarch to be a communicant of the established church, but I see no reason beyond tradition to dicriminate against Catholics while not applying the same standard to other religions.

How about a simple solution: The monarch is the head of the Church but he or she is allowed to marry a non Anglican and the consort could be allowed to have the option to keep his or her religion?

Sister Morphine 01-22-2007 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
I think they should do whatever it takes to get rid of the anti-Catholic discrimination which requires people to be removed from the line of succession if they marry a Catholic. I understand the reasoning behind the requirement for the monarch to be a communicant of the established church, but I see no reason beyond tradition to dicriminate against Catholics while not applying the same standard to other religions.


If they don't want to separate the CoE from the state, at the very least they can do this.

ysbel 01-22-2007 11:40 PM

I'm not that fond of cognitive primogeniture.

I think the crown princesses are going to have a harder time finding a husband willing to play second fiddle to them than a crown prince is going to have finding a woman who wants to be his crown princess.

And because its a hereditary system, the marriages and the families have to be healthy and survive.

The Japanese system goes in the absolute opposite direction. Not to allow a woman to ascend the throne under any circumstances causes tremendous problems when the family is all female. But I'm OK with male preference for inheriting the throne as long as it doesn't exclude females and the British system has a long history of allowing women to ascend the throne.

Toledo 01-22-2007 11:47 PM

on Established provisions for divorces, that looks like it could be the first item to modernize the rules. But I see a problem with the royals closer to the monarch because they have to get permision from the Crown first. Remember the Dukes of Kent couple? The monarch could approve or deny the royals closer to him or her (as the inmediate children and grandchildren) but, as the family grows, the other family members should be let free to divorce if they want to.

Madame Royale 01-23-2007 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
Haakon and Mette-Marit's youngest child is just Prince Sverre Magnus.

Though it is quite likely that upon his fathers accession he shall assume the style befitting the son of a sovereign, hence forth being known as HRH Prince Sverre Magnus of Norway.

Where do I see the British monarchy after Elizabeth II?

I really don't know. I mean, I'm sure it shall survive (Australia certain to obtain its rightful sovereign independence) and continue to progress with society (it must), but we will never see another monarch like Elizabeth II, that much is certain imo.

Sister Morphine 01-23-2007 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madame Royale
Though it is quite likely that upon his fathers accession he shall assume the style befitting the son of a sovereign, hence forth being known as HRH Prince Sverre Magnus of Norway.


I know this. The point I was trying to make though, is that Norway streamlined their RF so that there aren't multitudes of people with titles floating about.

Iluvbertie 01-23-2007 03:25 AM

Let's see who has the HRH in Britain at the moment

1) HM the Queen (OK not HRH but higher)
2) HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (spouse of monarch)
3) HRH The Prince of Wales
4) HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
5) HRH The Duke of York
6) HRH The Earl of Wessex
7) HRH The Countess of Wessex
8) HRH The Princess Royal
9) HRH Prince William of Wales
10) HRH Prince Harry of Wales
11) HRH Princess Beatrice of York
12) HRH Princess Eugenie of York
13) HRH The Duke of Gloucester
14) HRH The Duchess of Gloucester
15) HRH The The Duke of Kent
16) HRH The Duchess of Kent
17) HRH Princess Michael of Kent
18) HRH Princess Michael of Kent
19) HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent


However as the Queen's generation die out we will lose - # 1, 2, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

Then we are only left with the Queen's own children - children of the monarch.

Then there are the four grandchildren of the monarch of whom only two can pass on the HRH as they should become the children of the monarch in the furture.

I haven't included Louise as per the Queen's and her parents wish that she be known as Lady Louise. I haven't included Anne's children as they aren't HRH.

My point is that, unless William and Harry have heaps of kids, the number of people with the HRH will decrease naturally over the next two generations as only William and Harry can pass on the HRH.

With the decision to call Louise Lady instead of Princess we are getting a reduction in the HRH but what they aren't doing is removing titles from people intitled to them. I wouldn't be surprised if Harry's children don't have the HRH either.

Avareenah 01-23-2007 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huddo
I think Australia will definatley become a Republic and I'll take a guess and say the Royal Family may become smaller maybe along the lines of the Dutch Monarchy.

The British monarchy has become smaller and more streamlined. There is only a handful of family members currently involved in public duties and about two (?) who are still on the Civil List.

Madame Royale 01-23-2007 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sister Morphine
I know this. The point I was trying to make though, is that Norway streamlined their RF so that there aren't multitudes of people with titles floating about.

You may have known it, but that was not the impression you gave. Thanks for clarifying ;)

Quote:

With the decision to call Louise Lady instead of Princess we are getting a reduction in the HRH but what they aren't doing is removing titles from people intitled to them. I wouldn't be surprised if Harry's children don't have the HRH either.
Thats a very interesting observation, chrissy. I also think this quite possible.

Frothy 01-23-2007 04:03 AM

I believe that cognatic primogeniture is absolutely necessary, and that the present system insults women. I hope (since it affects me) to see further reforms of the arms system too so that armigerous women who have married non-armigerous men can pass their arms to their children, differenced like those of younger sons, and that titles in general will change.

We cannot wait, IMO, until a son disinherits a daughter to sort the issue. We should establish it when the present Queen dies as the first three in line at present are all men anyway. This matters far more to me than what a Queen consort is "known as".

All the major monarchies in Europe are bringing in cognatic primogeniture or thnking about it - it is a tide that cannot be stemmed.

I would also favour limiting the HRH. In an age of paparazzi, every HRH is a chance for scandal. Limit it and you limit the possibilities.

Sister Morphine 01-23-2007 04:44 AM

If it's good enough for Norway, Sweden, Belgium and The Netherlands, it should be good enough for England too. I should add that Denmark had discussed altering the succession laws and Felipe and Letizia leaked the sex of their child before she was born....probably to help spur the debate about changing it over there as well.

yvr girl 01-23-2007 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrissy57
I wouldn't be surprised if Harry's children don't have the HRH either.

As the rules currently stand, Harry's children will be Lord and Lady until his father ascends the thrown.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises