The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   The Future of the British Monarchy (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-future-of-the-british-monarchy-44877.html)

Jacknch 05-22-2018 09:23 AM

The Future of the British Monarchy
 
http://i63.tinypic.com/16bho1w.jpg

The Future of The British Monarchy

Here we can discuss the future of the British Monarchy including the Monarchy after Elizabeth II and the Monarchy under Charles and so replaces the http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...-ii-11874.html and http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...les-16252.html threads

royal-blue 05-23-2018 06:42 PM

Now that Charles's immediately family has expanded so much, I can now actually see the idea of Charles, William, Harry plus spouses, being the only working royals becoming a real possibility.

It would certainly keep the York family in particular from generating negative headlines.

The Cambridges and Sussexes have a vast potential for massively increasing their royal workload.

Frozen Royalist 05-23-2018 10:19 PM

Well here's an interesting thought I just had. If Britain were to abolish the monarchy before any of the Commonwealth Realms, as in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, what would become of the House of Windsor? Would they move to any of the Commonwealth Realms or just stay in Britain/England? Honestly I wouldn't mind the Windsors relocating to Canada in any event but what do you guys think?

I mean this does technically involve the future of the British Royal Family in the event of a abolishment so it is relevant to this thread right here. Plus look at it like this, it isn't like they'd have to have a referendum in the three nations I talked about because they are already the head of states there.

-Frozen Royalist

Curryong 05-23-2018 11:25 PM

IMO that would depend upon the terms on which the monarchy was abolished, on whether homes like Balmoral (in an independent Scotland) and Sandringham were still available, as well as on personal preference. I can't imagine the Queen wanting to go off and live in Italy or Romania for example but I can see Charles finding that option attractive. Harry and Meghan might choose Africa and the US.

If Charles or anyone else wished to go and live in Canada or Australia, (if they were still realms which I doubt,) it would probably require some consultation between Britain and the specific other countries. It could well be a bone of contention.

suztav 05-24-2018 11:47 AM

Happy to see the conversation in this thread. I, too, am curious as to the titles of Harry's children. It seems that Edward and Sophie established a precedent. It would be rather hypocritical for Harry's children to carry HRH's while people continue to berate Beatrice and Eugenie for having HRH titles.

To be quite honest, William now has 3 heirs -- Harry is not even a spare any more. JMHO.

Mbruno 05-24-2018 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frozen Royalist (Post 2114880)
Well here's an interesting thought I just had. If Britain were to abolish the monarchy before any of the Commonwealth Realms, as in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, what would become of the House of Windsor? Would they move to any of the Commonwealth Realms or just stay in Britain/England? Honestly I wouldn't mind the Windsors relocating to Canada in any event but what do you guys think?

I mean this does technically involve the future of the British Royal Family in the event of a abolishment so it is relevant to this thread right here. Plus look at it like this, it isn't like they'd have to have a referendum in the three nations I talked about because they are already the head of states there.

-Frozen Royalist

Abolishing the monarchy in the UK would have an immediate effect in Canada as the sovereign of Canada, under the Canadian constitution, is automatically the person who occupies the British throne under the UK laws of succession. As we learned from the Harper government during the debate on the Succession to the Crown Act, Canada properly does NOT have a law on succession to the Crown.

In other words, if the British laws of succession were repealed in the UK, Canada would in practice find itself without a Head of State until new constitutional arrangements could be put n place. Maybe something similar would happen in Australia, but I am not sure.

Denville 05-26-2018 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suztav (Post 2115041)
Happy to see the conversation in this thread. I, too, am curious as to the titles of Harry's children. It seems that Edward and Sophie established a precedent. It would be rather hypocritical for Harry's children to carry HRH's while people continue to berate Beatrice and Eugenie for having HRH titles.

To be quite honest, William now has 3 heirs -- Harry is not even a spare any more. JMHO.

?? Who "berates" them>? They are not responsibile for their titles, it is the normal title for a grandchild of the monarch, in the male line to have the title of Prince or Princess and HRH. Nobody is berating them for their titles. Edward and Sophie accepted lesser titles for their children because they and their children were far down the line and at the time, it was not expected that Ed and S would do royal duties. Even now, it is very very unlikely that james and Louise will be on the royal duty roster. However Harry's children probably will be....

Mbruno 05-26-2018 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2116010)
?? Who "berates" them>? They are not responsibile for their titles, it is the normal title for a grandchild of the monarch, in the male line to have the title of Prince or Princess and HRH. Nobody is berating them for their titles. Edward and Sophie accepted lesser titles for their children because they and their children were far down the line and at the time, it was not expected that Ed and S would do royal duties. Even now, it is very very unlikely that james and Louise will be on the royal duty roster. However Harry's children probably will be....


Edward was 7th in line when he got married. Harry is currently 6th, so they are not that different in that respect.

suztav 05-26-2018 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2116010)
?? Who "berates" them>? They are not responsibile for their titles, it is the normal title for a grandchild of the monarch, in the male line to have the title of Prince or Princess and HRH. Nobody is berating them for their titles. Edward and Sophie accepted lesser titles for their children because they and their children were far down the line and at the time, it was not expected that Ed and S would do royal duties. Even now, it is very very unlikely that james and Louise will be on the royal duty roster. However Harry's children probably will be....



Please! I’ve read posts on this Board where people talk about Beatrice and Eugenie as if they were no better than a housemaid. Those two are persecuted by the “nay sayers” . It’s positively disgraceful.

LauraS3514 05-26-2018 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2116010)
?? Who "berates" them>? They are not responsibile for their titles, it is the normal title for a grandchild of the monarch, in the male line to have the title of Prince or Princess and HRH. Nobody is berating them for their titles. Edward and Sophie accepted lesser titles for their children because they and their children were far down the line and at the time, it was not expected that Ed and S would do royal duties. Even now, it is very very unlikely that james and Louise will be on the royal duty roster. However Harry's children probably will be....

You must have missed all the tabloids calling for Beatrice and Eugenie to voluntarily relinquish their HRHs or to have Charles strip them away when he is King. After all, Anne "refused" titles for Peter and Zara and so did Edward and Sophie for their kids so therefore why do "those Yorks" still have them? :whistling:

jacqui24 05-26-2018 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suztav (Post 2115041)
Happy to see the conversation in this thread. I, too, am curious as to the titles of Harry's children. It seems that Edward and Sophie established a precedent. It would be rather hypocritical for Harry's children to carry HRH's while people continue to berate Beatrice and Eugenie for having HRH titles.

To be quite honest, William now has 3 heirs -- Harry is not even a spare any more. JMHO.

I'm one of the ones that thinks Harry will ask his children to be address as children of a Duke when the time comes, but why would it be hypocritical if they were to follow the LP? I haven't seen Harry berate Beatrice and Eugenie for their HRH titles.

jacqui24 05-26-2018 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LauraS3514 (Post 2116193)
You must have missed all the tabloids calling for Beatrice and Eugenie to voluntarily relinquish their HRHs or to have Charles strip them away when he is King. After all, Anne "refused" titles for Peter and Zara and so did Edward and Sophie for their kids so therefore why do "those Yorks" still have them? :whistling:

I haven't seen any tabloid articles (I'm talking about DM, DE, DM and so on here) calling for the York princesses' titles to be stripped. It's rightfully theirs. Even if a new LP is issued changing the law to only grandchildren of monarch from the heir to be HRH, a provision is likely to be made for the York princesses to keep their HRHs. Especially given that's how their birth certificate and legal documents were issued. Now some do treat them unfairly by not allowing them to carry on a complete private life and make remarks about them, but no one has called for their HRH to be stripped anymore than they've called for monarchy to be abolished.

jacqui24 05-26-2018 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2116038)
Edward was 7th in line when he got married. Harry is currently 6th, so they are not that different in that respect.

The caveat is that HMQ has four children with Edward being the youngest, while Prince Charles only has two sons. Harry will be featured prominently as a representative of the monarchy, much moreso than Edward, until George and siblings grow up. Judging by the way things were done with this generation, I don't expect them to take up full time duty for another 30 or so years.

Al_bina 05-26-2018 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacqui24 (Post 2116201)
The caveat is that HMQ has four children with Edward being the youngest, while Prince Charles only has two sons. Harry will be featured prominently as a representative of the monarchy, much moreso than Edward, until George and siblings grow up. Judging by the way things were done with this generation, I don't expect them to take up full time duty for another 30 or so years.

Featured prominently doing what exactly? Prince Henry can promote his causes. I do not think that he is capable of taking over Prince Andrew's delicate assignments.

Madame Verseau 05-26-2018 08:32 PM

I think Charles would like to have his grandchildren have HRH. The rules changed when Camilla married in and again when Kate joined the Firm. Will the rules change now that Meghan is in and Jack will soon join?

jacqui24 05-26-2018 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_bina (Post 2116216)

Featured prominently doing what exactly? Prince Henry can promote his causes. I do not think that he is capable of taking over Prince Andrew's delicate assignments.

Representing the crown. And aren't all of their assignments causes? And let's not act like Andrew has been some great promoter of projects. The publicity disaster resulting from his role as trade ambassador and that interview with The Sunday Times regarding innovation and palace hasn't exactly been great representation of "delicate" assignments.

jacqui24 05-26-2018 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau (Post 2116218)
I think Charles would like to have his grandchildren have HRH. The rules changed when Camilla married in and again when Kate joined the Firm. Will the rules change now that Meghan is in and Jack will soon join?

I think Charles would defer to his son on this simply because he's well aware Harry's children will be private citizens.

And what rules are you referring to?

Rudolph 05-26-2018 08:43 PM

I think one of the first things Charles will do as king is issue a new LP ‘updating’ royal styles and titles.

1917 was a long time ago. Public attitudes change. I think the days of having a royal title just for the sake of it are over.

jacqui24 05-26-2018 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudolph (Post 2116225)
I think one of the first things Charles will do as king is issue a new LP ‘updating’ royal styles and titles.

1917 was a long time ago. Public attitudes change. I think the days of having a royal title just for the sake of it are over.

I don't think we'll see Charles do it. Just because while he has some very progressive ideas, I still see him as more of a traditionalist when it comes to things like that. Just like the Queen didn't. He will issue a will, but that's about it. We might see that change when it comes to William's turn. Quite frankly, even then, I wouldn't bet my last dollar on it. I think it'd be a bit awkward until all the HRH that's only a grandchild of a monarch has passed away.

Rudolph 05-26-2018 09:04 PM

I think Charles has proven to be very pragmatic when it comes to monarchy. It was Charles who gave the British people the term ‘princess consort’. For no other reason than he thought it was good PR. If he’s willing to not have Camilla styled as Queen, limiting HRH is a piece of cake.

I have almost no doubt he’ll limit royal styles and titles during his reign. Plus it allows him to put his own stamp on things after probably 70 years of his mother as sovereign.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises