The Future of the British Monarchy 2: Sep 2022 -

[An Ard Ri]

I was reading that Prince Andrew was heckled and booed as his car drove down the Mall this morning.

 

[Durham]

For the British Monarchy, I see indifference continuing and also grumbling about the cost of a monarchy. The women's magazines seem interested only in Princess Catherine. So, I don't know if there'll be a monarchy 50 years from now.

The costs of a presidential system would still be substantial. Plus elections every few years & pensions & security for former presidents would also add up over time.

 

[Durham]

Yes, new laws were passed. Some protests have got out of hand recently - so-called environmentalists have blocked roads and even stopped ambulances from getting through.

Yes indeed. We live in age when some people feel entitled to interrupt the everyday lives of others. They don't. What they do have is a right to protest peacefully & lawfully. But some of them are just so conceited & arrogant that they think they can do whatever they want.

 

[Durham]

There was an anti Monarchist protest in London and were based at Trafalgar Square, estimated to be 1,000 -2,000 strong.
There was also one in Belfast today.

That's interesting. So one to two thousand republicans in a crowd of tens of thousands. Rather a poor showing for them I think.

 

[yukari]

I've seen photos of people in the crowd with yellow banners of "not my king". I wonder though, if their argument is because they don't elect Charles (hence "not my", say UK were to become republic but the candidate they supported didn't win the election, would they start another protest with "not my president"? (Because I've seen those kind of post-election protest in several republics).

 

[Muhler]

Well, without going into specifics, such protests in at least one republic has been seen, still is...

As for those who protest, who are they?

There are republicans and that's fair enough. King Charles is still their head of state though. And that they will have to accept, just as monarchists will have to accept a president as head of state should UK become a republic. That's democracy for you.

Then there are those who are anti - anti-anything actually. If someone invented a universal cure against cancer, they would protest against that as well.

Then there are those who are perhaps more against the whole spectacle and the money spend on the coronations, considering that UK is currently facing quite a few problems and that many Britons have serious problems in their day to day lives.
That is perhaps a more general political protest rather than against the monarchy.

A large segment however, I think, belongs to those who feel offended due to the suggestions about the public pledging their allegiance while watching the whole thing. Which on the face of it might have been a charming idea, but once you stand in front of the TV about to give your pledge, it may indeed become a bit weird to give your pledge and to give your pledge in such an impersonal way.

And finally there are those who believe King Charles, personally, does not represent them. They do not feel any affiliation with him, no sense of loyalty towards him, don't respect him as a person, they feel he doesn't care about them or that he to put it brutally belongs to a generation that is on the way out and as such is not relevant anymore.
This I think is the most interesting segment.
Who are they?
What segments of the population do they belong to?
Where do they live?
How old are they?
Would they prefer William instead?
How many are they?
- Being a foreigner in a foreign country I won't presume to know the answers.

 

[Roslyn]

A thoughtful post. I, too, wonder about the wording. 'Not my king" implies there is someone else they would prefer as king, not that they are republicans and against monarchy generally, or against this spectacle, because a coronation after 70 years was bound to be a fancy affair.

If they are against Charles personally, they don't really seem to grasp the nature of the British monarchy, because no-one gets a choice about who that's going to be. We all know who - barring misfortune - the next two will be.

 

[EllieCat]

That's interesting. So one to two thousand republicans in a crowd of tens of thousands. Rather a poor showing for them I think.

I read somewhere on the Daily Mail that the crowd was estimated to be 2 million, so that makes republicans 0.1 % and monarchists 99.9%.

However, it always seems to me that republicans get a larger showing on tv news than they should, just my opinion based on the numbers.

 

[Stefan]

I've seen photos of people in the crowd with yellow banners of "not my king". I wonder though, if their argument is because they don't elect Charles (hence "not my", say UK were to become republic but the candidate they supported didn't win the election, would they start another protest with "not my president"? (Because I've seen those kind of post-election protest in several republics).

Depends also how an elected president is elected. Here in Germany the normal population has no say in it, as the president is not elcted by them but by a special gremium who only comes together every 5 years to elect the President.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Depends also how an elected president is elected. Here in Germany the normal population has no say in it, as the president is not elcted by them but by a special gremium who only comes together every 5 years to elect the President.

We see that also in countries as Italy or Hungary.

When the dot comes to the i: even the President of the United States is not directly elected as the public votes for the Electoral College and not for the President.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I read somewhere on the Daily Mail that the crowd was estimated to be 2 million, so that makes republicans 0.1 % and monarchists 99.9%.

However, it always seems to me that republicans get a larger showing on tv news than they should, just my opinion based on the numbers.

That is always the case as the media and the meteopolitan us-knows-us are more "egalitarian", liberal, political correct and "woke" than the average man in the street.

 

[Alison H]

That is always the case as the media and the meteopolitan us-knows-us are more "egalitarian", liberal, political correct and "woke" than the average man in the street.

This is very true, and there are constant complaints about the BBC in particular being like this.

The "not my king" thing is against monarchy in general: it's not against Charles.

 

[Lilyflo]

That is always the case as the media and the meteopolitan us-knows-us are more "egalitarian", liberal, political correct and "woke" than the average man in the street.

Is that just your opinion or do you have evidence for that?

My opinion is the opposite.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Is that just your opinion or do you have evidence for that?

My opinion is the opposite.

That is a fact. I do not know the situation in the UK but over here Le Monde, l'Humanité, Libération (France), Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Zeit, Die Tageszeitung (Germany) and almost all newspapers in the Benelux (in hands of three conglomerates) are more egalitarian, politically correct, diverse, "woke" so once wants, than what we see at Elections. In all these countries the Electorate is more conservative than the media seems to show, especially on the public broadcasting channels.

While they make fun of royal events, or announce the immediate fall of the monarchy, they are surprised by the numbers watching weddings, funerals, Investitures, jubilees or genuinely in disarray seeing the masses in London yesterday or Rotterdam last week (King's Day) while for weeks they have predicted a lukewarm response and no interest while giving free airtime to anti-monarchists.

In German media the political correctness is so stringent that it even affects the readability of the articles: the newly crowned King Charles greeted the Bürger*innen (civilians in female and female form - usually the Bürger) while Militär*innen (military in female and male form - usually the Militär) passed by. Dozens of Politiker*innen (politicians in female and male form - usually the Politikern) assembled in Westminster Abbey where a lot of Mitarbeiter*innen (workers in female and male form - usually the Mitarbeitern) have erected a special stage for the ceremony.

According polls an overwhelming majority of the Germans is against the Gendergerechte way of writing: "Oh, f*** off, please with that Gendersternchen (little Gender star) in every possible word!" but this widespread irritation is not echoed by the media, seeing itself as an avant-garde leading the way.

Seeing The Guardian, the BBC and The Independent I doubt UK media is really showing the average Briton.

 

[Denville]

Is that just your opinion or do you have evidence for that?

My opinion is the opposite.

No, generally the media are far more left wing than ordinary people

 

[Muhler]

I think you'd find new outlets with a similar intellectual arrogance in every country. An we know better, we are more enlightened, we cannot be deluded in contrast to the common riff raff - attitude.

On the other side of the spectrum are the news outlets that are deliberately dumbing down their readers/viewers by belittling intelligence, education and expertise.
They even more arrogant and also more dangerous. Because they manipulate people.

The intellectuals (people who have been educated above their intelligence, Arthur C Clarke) try to lead by example and only ends up merely being annoying.

I think that if you want to learn the true trend among ordinary people, read the provincial papers. Their survival depends on them reading for the people, about the people.

 

[Lilyflo]

That is a fact. I do not know the situation in the UK (...)
Seeing The Guardian, the BBC and The Independent I doubt UK media is really showing the average Briton.

The UK media also includes The Telegraph, The Times and The Daily Mail, which are right-leaning papers.

The 'average Briton' might be more "egalitarian", liberal, political correct and "woke" than you think. Voting polls show about 60% in favour of the more left-leaning, liberal parties (Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens) whereas the right leaning parties are at about 34% (Conservative and Reform).

The BBC has to straddle the centre as best as it can and there are complaints from the left that it's too right wing and complaints from the right that it's too left wing. If it hadn't covered the republican protests, there would be uproar about suppressing news so I think they were correct to cover them, despite not being a republican myself. I think support for a UK republic is about 25% so it's a minority but not insignificant enough to warrant being ignored by the media.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The UK media also includes The Telegraph, The Times and The Daily Mail, which are right-leaning papers.

The 'average Briton' might be more "egalitarian", liberal, political correct and "woke" than you think. Voting polls show about 60% in favour of the more left-leaning, liberal parties (Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens) whereas the right leaning parties are at about 34% (Conservative and Reform).

The BBC has to straddle the centre as best as it can and there are complaints from the left that it's too right wing and complaints from the right that it's too left wing. If it hadn't covered the republican protests, there would be uproar about suppressing news so I think they were correct to cover them, despite not being a republican myself. I think support for a UK republic is about 25% so it's a minority but not insignificant enough to warrant being ignored by the media.

For decades in Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands the majority of the politicians prefer a Republic. You would say: that is a majority of the people. At the same time neither in Sweden, Belgium nor the Netherlands there is a majority for that. This shows that media and politicians generally are out of sync (or more avant-garde, if one wants) than the public.

The same in France: while masses and the left-wing media protest against the reforms of "that Rothschild banker" (Macron) it are actually not the progressive parties but exactly the extreme right Marie Le Pen harvesting the free falling fruit.

I think that the gentrified London media clan is not the true voice for the whole of the UK.

 

[Lilyflo]

For decades in Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands the majority of the politicians prefer a Republic. You would say: that is a majority of the people. At the same time neither in Sweden, Belgium nor the Netherlands there is a majority for that. This shows that media and politicians generally are out of sync (or more avant-garde, if one wants) than the public. The same in France: while masses and the left-wing media protest against the reforms of "that Rothschild banker" (Macron) it are actually not the progressive parties but exactly the extreme right Marie Le Pen harvesting the free falling fruit.

I can't comment on the above I'm afraid as I don't know enough about politics or culture in those countries to have an informed opinion.

I think that the gentrified London media clan is not the true voice for the whole of the UK.

Gentrified? Could you elaborate on your meaning?

Given the diversity of opinion in our main national newspapers (The Sun, The Times, The Daily Mirror, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Guardian etc), which are weighted heavily to the right, I don't think any media group can be the 'true voice of the whole of the UK', because there isn't one. Our voices are diverse and no media outlet can reflect us all on every topic, including royal events.

 

[An Ard Ri]

That's interesting. So one to two thousand republicans in a crowd of tens of thousands. Rather a poor showing for them I think.

They certainly made enough noise with the 'Not my king' chorus!

 

[Muhler]

They certainly made enough noise with the 'Not my king' chorus!

Because they got attention by the press?

That is as it should be. I.e. the press is obliged to also report on opposite, even unpopular opinions, whether we like it or not.
Whether these demonstrators got disproportional attention is of course debatable.
However, at least one UK paper also attempted to demonize them.

 

[Durham]

Because they got attention by the press?

That is as it should be. I.e. the press is obliged to also report on opposite, even unpopular opinions, whether we like it or not.
Whether these demonstrators got disproportional attention is of course debatable.
However, at least one UK paper also attempted to demonize them.

They'd get more sympathy (not support mind you) if they were less angry & unpleasant. They'd be better off using a bit of humour. Maybe channel some Monty Python - "he's not the king he's just a silly boy"

 

[Hallo girl]

The anti monarchy group as such were not proportionally that large . They correctly or incorrectly were being alligned with some other protest groups yesterday who do cause disruption as opposed to noise and reasonably respectable protest.

There was genuine concern that disruption would be caused to the parade, i.e. scare the horses etc. If something like that had taken place the result could have been horrific.

There were protesters at the platinum jubilee that tried to disrupt the parade, they had managed to get on to the parade between the security, I think you will find that is why the police and military were so close together lining the route yesterday.

Also you can never be sure how members of the public will react to a disruption, just ask the guy who called out to Prince Andrew in Edinburgh, he was taken away by the police for his own safety not because he had called out.

 

[Muhler]

Yes, I read about the alarms some had brought with them with the intention of distributing them and spook the horses.
A completely insane thing to do, by someone who obviously has no idea about horses and how big such a critter really is.
It could have killed people and animals alike.

People can forgive many things, but horses with broken legs having to be put down...

Anyway, I don't know whether these nutcases were anti-monarchy or eco-hippies, it doesn't really matter.

And as Durham points out, humor really is in short supply these days.

 

[travelguy]

Trying to do some Maths here but I am 30, If I live to 100 which is more then Possible I could see William and George on the throne. Would I be likely to even see George's Kids get married?

 

[Mbruno]

In her Canadian interview the Princess Royal made it clear that further reduction of the working members of the family is not desirable - so, I'd say that they are all hoping that both Charlotte and Louis will be open to becoming working members of the royal family in support of their father and brother.

By the time William succeeds (assuming that comes to pass), the King and Queen (William and Kate), plus the aging Edward and Sophie, may be the only available working royals. George might have to step up and take up a full working load as Prince of Wales already in his late 20's assuming his father is already King by then. When he gets married, if that happens, he will obviously have the benefit of being supported by the new Princess of Wales, but, at that stage, George and his wife will be just replacing Edward and Sophie, who will be starting to slow down probably.


Maybe, in a reformed monarchy under William, it might be possible to manage with the King and Queen, and the Prince and Princess of Wales only. But, without the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who would be the natural spare working couple in William's reign, I think it is likely that Charlotte and Louis, plus their spouses, will be eventually included, at least as part-time working royals.

 

[sophie25]

The anti monarchy group as such were not proportionally that large . They correctly or incorrectly were being alligned with some other protest groups yesterday who do cause disruption as opposed to noise and reasonably respectable protest.

There was genuine concern that disruption would be caused to the parade, i.e. scare the horses etc. If something like that had taken place the result could have been horrific.

There were protesters at the platinum jubilee that tried to disrupt the parade, they had managed to get on to the parade between the security, I think you will find that is why the police and military were so close together lining the route yesterday.

Also you can never be sure how members of the public will react to a disruption, just ask the guy who called out to Prince Andrew in Edinburgh, he was taken away by the police for his own safety not because he had called out.

That's not true. Graham Smith, the head of the Republic group, had been liaising with the Met Police for weeks if not months and the Police were satisfied with the protest plans so gave them the go ahead. When Mr. Smith and the 5 main organisers arrived that morning they were instantly arrested on the spot, apparently without even being told what they were being arrested for, which is a major breech of procedure.The Met behaved entirely underhand and basically lied about allowing the protest to keep Graham Smith and others sweet in the lead up to the day.

 

[muriel]

By the time William succeeds (assuming that comes to pass), the King and Queen (William and Kate), plus the aging Edward and Sophie, may be the only available working royals. George might have to step up and take up a full working load as Prince of Wales already in his late 20's assuming his father is already King by then. When he gets married, if that happens, he will obviously have the benefit of being supported by the new Princess of Wales, but, at that stage, George and his wife will be just replacing Edward and Sophie, who will be starting to slow down probably.


Maybe, in a reformed monarchy under William, it might be possible to manage with the King and Queen, and the Prince and Princess of Wales only. But, without the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who would be the natural spare working couple in William's reign, I think it is likely that Charlotte and Louis, plus their spouses, will be eventually included, at least as part-time working royals.

You are right that in the early years of William's reign (depending on when he becomes King), the BRF will probbaly be short of hands. William and Catherine will probably only be supported by Edward and Sophie at that stage. It may also be some time before George and his potential wife are able to join the firm. Depending on time lines and the age of Charlotte, she may well need to be roped in to help. I doubt Louis will be (only because nto all 3 siblings may be required by the Firm), but it is too early to speculate.

Harry & Meghan could well have helped the situation, but that horse has bolted and there is no way back now, IMO.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Here is the aforementioned quote from the Princess Royal's recent interview with CBC. It sounds to me as if she is speaking for herself.

Anne said today: 'I think that "slimmed down" was said in a day when there were a few more people to make that seem like a justifiable comment'.

When it was put to her that the world changes, Anne said: 'It changes a bit. I mean, it doesn't sound like a good idea from where I'm standing, I have to say. I'm not quite sure what else, you know, we can do.'
​

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ro...med-monarchy-doesnt-sound-like-good-idea.html

But, without the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who would be the natural spare working couple in William's reign, I think it is likely that Charlotte and Louis, plus their spouses, will be eventually included, at least as part-time working royals.

Some members of this forum are very certain that the British royal family will not reform their patriarchal rules during the Wales children's lifetimes. If they are correct, then Louis's anticipated female spouse will be expected to give up her career upon marriage and become a princess to support the monarchy whereas Charlotte's anticipated male spouse will have to remain a private citizen with no formal role.

 

[Blog Real]

Here is the aforementioned quote from the Princess Royal's recent interview with CBC. It sounds to me as if she is speaking for herself.

Anne said today: 'I think that "slimmed down" was said in a day when there were a few more people to make that seem like a justifiable comment'.

When it was put to her that the world changes, Anne said: 'It changes a bit. I mean, it doesn't sound like a good idea from where I'm standing, I have to say. I'm not quite sure what else, you know, we can do.'
​

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ro...med-monarchy-doesnt-sound-like-good-idea.html




Some members of this forum are very certain that the British royal family will not reform their patriarchal rules during the Wales children's lifetimes. If they are correct, then Louis's anticipated female spouse will be expected to give up her career upon marriage and become a princess to support the monarchy whereas Charlotte's anticipated male spouse will have to remain a private citizen with no formal role.

This is an interesting question. I think that by the time Princess Charlotte marries, and there is still a long way to go, her future husband will also be able to assume royal duties and be on an equal footing with Louis' wife. Nor would it make sense to be otherwise.