The Future of the British Monarchy 2: Sep 2022 -

[Alison H]

It's a very long way down the line, but I think it'll depend on the personalities and positions of the people concerned - whether they have careers which they are reluctant to give up, or are happy to become full time working royals.

 

[tommy100]

Hmm it could go either way, maybe Louis' wife might not get a royal title (or not use it more likely) and they would allow their spouses to continue whatever professional careers they want / have already. Just like Tim Lawrence now.

But that would limit the working RF even further.

 

[Claire]

There is no doubt in my mind that the palace has made contingency plans for all sorts of scenarios that might come about.
It is odd to remember that Edward and Sophie were 25 years not working royals. And really shouldn't be there now. Time changes and there is no doubt in my mind that future people will one day look at the royals on the balcony and wonder.
I believe that the monarchy is given Beatrice and Eugenie time with their young children now - and that in time and allowing the Andrew saga to settle will become full royals. Before Spare I thought that there was a possibility that Harry will be returning but when he does, I think we have maybe 20 plus years before William if ever allows him fully back.

 

[Saragli]

The monarchy has already slimmed down. Idk how much more slimming there is to do unless one wants to cut out the monarchs siblings.

There is still a long way to go until the PoW is King and his children are adults, many things can happen until then, but I personally fully expect Charlotte and Louis to be full time working royals supporting their parents. What will become of their spouses is an interesting choice as I do not see Charlottes and Louis spouses being treated differently. IF their spouses want to join in on being royals, and I think that is the better option as its always easier as a team, I see both spouses taking on their partners titles and supporting them. I do not expect their children to be titled. Even if the UK were to break up and the RF only ends up with England, there is still enough funding through the Duchy's to support Charlotte and Louis.

 

[travelguy]

To be honest we didn't really think Harry's Children would become Prince or Princess but they have been so I can't see William not giving his grandchildren a Prince or Princess title when the time comes

 

[Somebody]

The point still stands that the message for a "slimmed-down monarchy" was geared to say that any grandchildren of the monarch will not become working royals, regardless of their titles.

I'm very much looking forward to HM's first Trooping of the Colour as King. I wonder if the King will continue HLM's tradition of being more generous with the balcony appearances for the birthday celebrations.

If he is as generous (or even slightly more generous) he could use the same cut-off point: cousins and their descendants (although in practice he might want to discourage some in participating - previously not everyone who was invited participated yearly either).

If so, the following people would be eligible to appear on the balcony:
Charles & Camilla (2)
William, Catherine, George, Charlotte, Louis (5)
Harry, Meghan, Archie, Lilibet (4)
Anne & Timothy (2)
Peter, Savannah, Isla (3)
Zara, Mike, Mia, Leah, Lucas (5)
Andrew (1)
Beatrice, Edo, Wolfie, Sienna (4)
Eugenie, Jack, August (3)
Edward, Sophie, Louise, James (4)
David, Charles, Margarita (3)
Sarah, Daniel, Samuel, Arthur (4)

--> 40 people (at the moment: pretty soon adding the newest Brooksbank)

In addition, if he follows his mother's example per above, I assume he will invite the other royal highnesses from the previous generation (of which at least the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester are likely to appear) - but I see little reason to continue to invite all their children (6th degree blood relative/second cousin) and grandchildren (7th degree blood relative/second cousin once removed).

 

[duchessrachel]

I don’t think George will be allowed by The King (wether it is his father or his grandfather) to marry outside of London if UK is still a monarchy… There will be a too big public interest for that…

Wether William will have a coronation depends on if The King is still the Supreme Governor of the Church of England by the time of his accession… If he is not, then the only legitimate reason for not ending the coronations has gone…

I read something similar a couple of days ago regarding Coronations and the King as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. As long the monarch remains as the Supreme Governor of the CofE, will there continue to be coronations since it is a religious service?

 

[duchessrachel]

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.

Particularly those networks with an agenda against the Monarchy.

 

[duchessrachel]

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

That is definitely true here in the US.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There is no doubt in my mind that the palace has made contingency plans for all sorts of scenarios that might come about.
It is odd to remember that Edward and Sophie were 25 years not working royals. And really shouldn't be there now. Time changes and there is no doubt in my mind that future people will one day look at the royals on the balcony and wonder.
I believe that the monarchy is given Beatrice and Eugenie time with their young children now - and that in time and allowing the Andrew saga to settle will become full royals. Before Spare I thought that there was a possibility that Harry will be returning but when he does, I think we have maybe 20 plus years before William if ever allows him fully back.

Where do you get the 25 years 'not working royals'?

They were both full-time working royals in 2002 or three years after they married. Even before that Edward was doing around 200 engagements a year as a part-time royal (as was Andrew while in the navy ... just as the Duke of Kent was while in the army).

After Sophie was caught in the fake sheikh sting in 2001 and Edward's company was filming in St Andrews just as William started (had planned that episode of the series for that September before they knew William was going to go to St Andrews and Edward personally wasn't there) Charles said they had to take on full-time working royals to stop any more potential embarrassing incidents. Sophie had a bit of a slow period after her three pregnancies (the first ectopic one in 2001 and then the ones that saw Louise and James born).

They will celebrate their 25th anniversary next year by the way so no way have they been 25 years as part-time working royals.

As for Beatrice and Eugenie - I don't see them ever being full-time working royals.

I remember in 2011/12 when the places the royals were visiting for the Diamond Jubilee were being announced and Andrew was announced as going to India Beatrice and Andrew asked if she could go with him to introduce her to royal work. She was just finishing at uni. The Queen and Charles told her no and so she went to William who said the same thing - she wasn't wanted or needed. She accepted that and has moved on with her life. It is clear Charles and William have decided no replacements for the Kent's and Gloucester's.

The Gloucester's will continue, I suspect throughout most of Charles' reign unless their health intervenes. Remember that Richard is only 4 years older than Charles with Birgitte a year older than Camilla.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

If he is as generous (or even slightly more generous) he could use the same cut-off point: cousins and their descendants (although in practice he might want to discourage some in participating - previously not everyone who was invited participated yearly either).

If so, the following people would be eligible to appear on the balcony:
Charles & Camilla (2)
William, Catherine, George, Charlotte, Louis (5)
Harry, Meghan, Archie, Lilibet (4)
Anne & Timothy (2)
Peter, Savannah, Isla (3)
Zara, Mike, Mia, Leah, Lucas (5)
Andrew (1)
Beatrice, Edo, Wolfie, Sienna (4)
Eugenie, Jack, August (3)
Edward, Sophie, Louise, James (4)
David, Charles, Margarita (3)
Sarah, Daniel, Samuel, Arthur (4)

--> 40 people (at the moment: pretty soon adding the newest Brooksbank)

In addition, if he follows his mother's example per above, I assume he will invite the other royal highnesses from the previous generation (of which at least the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester are likely to appear) - but I see little reason to continue to invite all their children (6th degree blood relative/second cousin) and grandchildren (7th degree blood relative/second cousin once removed).

Yeah I feel like if you replaced the the Dukes/Duchess of Gloucester and Kent with the Chattos, Snowdons, Andrew and the Sussexes, that could be a doable list considering the current trends found in the family

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think it is time to clarify that a royal is only royal when they are working for the monarch - so the 'non-working royals' all lose their royal status and titles (not peerage titles but HRH and Prince/Princess). I would also suggest that children don't get that status until they start working for the monarch.

I wouldn't remove it from an elderly or ill royal who retired from royal duties but would remove HRH from George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry, Archie, Lilibet, Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie (possibly Michael but he is over 80 so that would seem really mean).

George would get it back immediately he became heir apparent if he isn't working for the sovereign as his only 'job' by then. Charlotte and Louis would also only get it back when their only job is to work for the monarch.

 

[tommy100]

They should create a "Royal House" like the Dutch and Norwegian royals and make it clear that only those members of the Royal Family who are members of the Royal House are public figures. I would agree limiting titles would also help but there will always be exceptions - e.g. do Charlotte and Louis not have titles for decades then do what Edward and Andrew did and star working for the Sovereign at 40 odd get titles.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Exactly - only when they start working for the monarch do they get the royal status.

I would also put an age limit - if not working by 30/35 then never working and thus never royal.

Saves the angst about 'in' or 'out'. Plenty of time to decide but if by xxxx date then never royal and no appearance at royal events etc.

 

[kimebear]

Exactly - only when they start working for the monarch do they get the royal status.

I would also put an age limit - if not working by 30/35 then never working and thus never royal.

Why not just do away with royal families entirely then? Since the trend seems to be 'slimming down' monarchies, then slim them all down completely and have only elected governments and heads of state going forward. Then there's no fuss or muss about who is royal and who isn't, because no one will be. Wouldn't that settle things?

Honestly, monarchists who desire to see royal families whittled down to the bare nub make me shake my head. Every royal watcher is always going to have favorite family members that they want to see waving from the palace balcony. Start taking that away in earnest and eventually support for the monarchs themselves will whittle away into nothing as well.

 

[Minister of Court]

Why not just do away with royal families entirely then? Since the trend seems to be 'slimming down' monarchies, then slim them all down completely and have only elected governments and heads of state going forward. Then there's no fuss or muss about who is royal and who isn't, because no one will be. Wouldn't that settle things?

Honestly, monarchists who desire to see royal families whittled down to the bare nub make me shake my head. Every royal watcher is always going to have favorite family members that they want to see waving from the palace balcony. Start taking that away in earnest and eventually support for the monarchs themselves will whittle away into nothing as well.

Hardly a staunch monarchist if you turn republican because some distant cousin five times removed doesn’t make a balcony appearance…

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Why not just do away with royal families entirely then? Since the trend seems to be 'slimming down' monarchies, then slim them all down completely and have only elected governments and heads of state going forward. Then there's no fuss or muss about who is royal and who isn't, because no one will be. Wouldn't that settle things?

It is not necessary to do away with monarchy in order to have an elected head of state. Indeed, many of the hereditary monarchies in Europe today evolved from elective monarchies.

But certainly, it may be that some monarchies will choose to only involve the reigning monarch and their spouse in official duties. It has happened many times before and will surely happen again.

 

[Somebody]

Why not just do away with royal families entirely then? Since the trend seems to be 'slimming down' monarchies, then slim them all down completely and have only elected governments and heads of state going forward. Then there's no fuss or muss about who is royal and who isn't, because no one will be. Wouldn't that settle things?

Honestly, monarchists who desire to see royal families whittled down to the bare nub make me shake my head. (...)

I agree. One of the main differences between a monarchy and a republic is that a monarchy is a family business. So, I don't support ideas to remove titles from children to later potentially make them royal... They were born royal; and therefore in a special and elevated position. If they aren't born royal, I agree there is no reason why that particular person would need to be made royal and not someone else who might be better fitted for the job.

However, why are we having this discussion in a thread about orders?

 

[kimebear]

Hardly a staunch monarchist if you turn republican because some distant cousin five times removed doesn’t make a balcony appearance…

On the contrary, I'm a solid monarchist, which is why I think some of the recent choices being made have hurt the various royal families in long term popularity.

The BP balcony during TTC looked downright barren, which is a shame when having the extended family around for a few celebrations during the year is something that a lot of people have always looked forward to. I simply see it as the monarchy cutting off its own nose to spite its face.

I also think it's shameful that Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise, princesses of the blood even if Louise doesn't style herself that way, were not given the RFO. Talk about treating someone as a distant cousin...

 

[sophie25]

On the contrary, I'm a solid monarchist, which is why I think some of the recent choices being made have hurt the various royal families in long term popularity.

The BP balcony during TTC looked downright barren, which is a shame when having the extended family around for a few celebrations during the year is something that a lot of people have always looked forward to. I simply see it as the monarchy cutting off its own nose to spite its face.

I also think it's shameful that Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise, princesses of the blood even if Louise doesn't style herself that way, were not given the RFO. Talk about treating someone as a distant cousin...

I totally agree I always loved TTC but this year was a bore. I'm tired of looking at Kate, Sophie etc, no harm to them. It certainly was a great day for royal watchers in the past but there's nothing much to see now and, as I said before, I very much doubt that one big family gathering once a year done the royal family any harm. I'm not nearly as interested in the royals as I used to be and I am not a republican, I'm sure the slimming down thing is turning a lot of royalists off as it's went too far.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

One of the main differences between a monarchy and a republic is that a monarchy is a family business.

I don't think treating or not treating the headship of state as a family business is inherently monarchist or republican. A monarchy may exclude members of the head of state's family from official business (e.g. the Vatican), whilst a republic may include them (e.g. Italy where the president's daughter serves as First Lady).

 

[Blog Real]

I think it is time to clarify that a royal is only royal when they are working for the monarch - so the 'non-working royals' all lose their royal status and titles (not peerage titles but HRH and Prince/Princess). I would also suggest that children don't get that status until they start working for the monarch.

I wouldn't remove it from an elderly or ill royal who retired from royal duties but would remove HRH from George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry, Archie, Lilibet, Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie (possibly Michael but he is over 80 so that would seem really mean).

George would get it back immediately he became heir apparent if he isn't working for the sovereign as his only 'job' by then. Charlotte and Louis would also only get it back when their only job is to work for the monarch.

I don't agree with that at all. No monarchy works like that.

 

[Somebody]

I don't think treating or not treating the headship of state as a family business is inherently monarchist or republican. A monarchy may exclude members of the head of state's family from official business (e.g. the Vatican), whilst a republic may include them (e.g. Italy where the president's daughter serves as First Lady).

The Vatican is very atypical, I am not even sure why it is considered a monarchy. The monarchy we are talking about is clearly a hereditary monarchy in which the crown is inherited by a/the close(st) family member (however that might be defined/elected).

And while a president normally has a family member as a support act (most often their spouse but if unavailable some pick a different family member) - and yes, I am aware that some president's take that a bit further, however, that's not ingrained in the system; it doesn't make it a family business that provides long term stability over generations.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Vatican is very atypical, I am not even sure why it is considered a monarchy.

I'm not sure why the Vatican wouldn't be considered a monarchy if the UK's status as a monarchy is unquestioned. The Vatican head of state undoubtedly exercises more de facto control over his state than the UK's head of state does.

Edited to respond to an edit:

The monarchy we are talking about is clearly a hereditary monarchy in which the crown is inherited by a/the close(st) family member (however that might be defined/elected).

I was responding to statements made about monarchies in general, not hereditary monarchies specifically (although even hereditary monarchies do not necessarily need to involve family members other than the monarch).

 

[Somebody]

I'm not sure why the Vatican wouldn't be considered a monarchy if the UK's status as a monarchy is unquestioned. The Vatican head of state undoubtedly exercises more de facto control over his state than the UK's head of state does.

How much control a head of state has no longer seems to be the relevant factor in deciding which country is a monarchy. Dictators typically have lots of power without being a monarchy. A large portion of the current monarchies nowadays aren't absolute monarchies.

Nonetheless, some presidents have powers that previously would be assigned to a monarch, while nowadays in parts of the worlds, it is rather they opposite. For example, the current American president in the ancient way is more of a monarch than the king of the UK.

So, it seems we are ending up in a debate about the definition of a monarch (interesting, but probably for a different topic than this one that is specifically about the British royal family). This description at wikipedia seems to cover it well (and yes, the Vatican would indeed be a monarchy - although not a hereditary one as in the UK; however, not as sure about Andorra with the two princes of which one is tied to a temporary presidency): "A monarchy is a form of government in which a person, the monarch, is head of state for life or until abdication. (...) In current usage the word monarchy usually refers to a traditional system of hereditary rule, as elective monarchies are quite rare."

I was responding to statements made about monarchies in general, not hereditary monarchies specifically (although even hereditary monarchies do not necessarily need to involve family members other than the monarch).

How would a hereditary monarchy not include family members? If no family members would be involved, there wouldn't be a next monarch from that family. So, what would the 'inheritance' be about in that hereditary monarchy?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

however, not as sure about Andorra with the two princes of which one is tied to a temporary presidency)

The term for a country with two sovereigns, such as Andorra, is a diarchy (whether they serve temporarily or for life is irrelevant).

How would a hereditary monarchy not include family members? If no family members would be involved, there wouldn't be a next monarch from that family. So, what would the 'inheritance' be about in that hereditary monarchy?

The next monarch might remain uninvolved in the "family business" until they succeed as the sovereign themselves.

ETA: I would be happy to move this discussion to a non-British-specific thread; which would you suggest?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Editing to expand on my prior comment:

This description at wikipedia seems to cover it well (and yes, the Vatican would indeed be a monarchy - although not a hereditary one as in the UK; however, not as sure about Andorra with the two princes of which one is tied to a temporary presidency): "A monarchy is a form of government in which a person, the monarch, is head of state for life or until abdication.

I think there are a number of problems with the article writer's description: most people apply the term "head of state" to national leaders regardless of the form of government; the "for life until abdication" description would wrongly exclude term-limited monarchies as well as any monarchy in which it is possible to depose the monarch; and the description is overly broad because it would include non-monarchies where a person is head of state for life.

"(...) In current usage the word monarchy usually refers to a traditional system of hereditary rule, as elective monarchies are quite rare."

Elective monarchies are not exactly rare, in my opinion, even currently. Apart from purely elective monarchies, many of the partially hereditary national monarchies today continue to elect their monarchs from the members of one or multiple royal families: Malaysia, the UAE, Kuwait, Cambodia, the list goes on.

Besides, even if elective monarchies were rare, I don't think that ought to be used to alter the definition of the word to be more restrictive. If were were to consistently apply that logic, "current usage" should limit use of the words "monarch" and "head of state" to refer to men only, because women monarchs and heads of state are "quite rare", for example.

(Again, please feel free to move my comment to a non-UK-specific thread.)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Charles doesn't want more than about 6 - 8 so that will be about right.

The York girls were told years ago that they weren't going to be working royals and so went about doing their own thing.

Since Charles started really running things, during the late Queen's last couple of years they have hardly been seen - no balcony appearances, not even Trooping this year for either of them.

Charles actually believes that the days of about 5000 engagements a year total are over and 1000 - 2000 will be fine with William even seeing fewer needed.

There are no working royals under 40 and only 4 under 70 but the two most senior male royals are happy with that and aren't going to be adding any new workers for about another 20 years when George will have to step up, maybe. (why maybe - it was expected that William would start when he was about 30 but he was able to put it off until he was 35 and it will be hard to insist that George starts at a younger age than his father).

To be honest, it puzzles me that British royal family watchers (in general) criticize the lack of young working royals but at the same time say that royals cannot be expected to become working members until their mid-thirties. If British royals only commence their working roles at age 35, then of course there will be no working royals under 40 most of the time - as each royal will only have a 5-year window during which they are both a working royal and younger than 40.

 

[muriel]

To be honest, it puzzles me that British royal family watchers (in general) criticize the lack of young working royals but at the same time say that royals cannot be expected to become working members until their mid-thirties. If British royals only commence their working roles at age 35, then of course there will be no working royals under 40 most of the time - as each royal will only have a 5-year window during which they are both a working royal and younger than 40.

There are no hard and fast rules in relation to startiong at age 35. William had the luxury of delaying starting as a full time heir as there were plenty of other working family members. George and possibly, charlotte, may not have that choice.

 

[yukari]

Editing to expand on my prior comment:



I think there are a number of problems with the article writer's description: most people apply the term "head of state" to national leaders regardless of the form of government; the "for life until abdication" description would wrongly exclude term-limited monarchies as well as any monarchy in which it is possible to depose the monarch; and the description is overly broad because it would include non-monarchies where a person is head of state for life.



Elective monarchies are not exactly rare, in my opinion, even currently. Apart from purely elective monarchies, many of the partially hereditary national monarchies today continue to elect their monarchs from the members of one or multiple royal families: Malaysia, the UAE, Kuwait, Cambodia, the list goes on.

Besides, even if elective monarchies were rare, I don't think that ought to be used to alter the definition of the word to be more restrictive. If were were to consistently apply that logic, "current usage" should limit use of the words "monarch" and "head of state" to refer to men only, because women monarchs and heads of state are "quite rare", for example.

(Again, please feel free to move my comment to a non-UK-specific thread.)

May I suggest moving it here?
General Questions About Royalty and Monarchies

This discussion makes me wonder, should North Korea be considered monarchy then? (yes, I know officially it's a republic)
Because if it's about power, NK's head of state surely hold more power than most head of states of other countries and if it's about hereditary position, the current head of state "inherits" his position from his father who was head of state until he died and also "inherited" it from his father.