The Future of the British Monarchy 2: Sep 2022 -

[An Ard Ri]

That is a herculanean task.

Note that often the personal approval of members of the royal family or Royal House is higher than the "score" for the instititution. But having a personal polularity is something else than having the opinion that a hereditary monarchy is the best form of state for your country. Then we see that the two statistics can differ quite a lot.

He only needs to halt the general downward spiral and not push it to 100%

That's a job for Hercules!

 

[Hans-Rickard]

I can imagine The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra gradually slowing down more and more. Not dissapear from public view completely (neither of them are terminally ill so there is no reason for that) but do fewer and fewer outhouse engagements.

The Gloucester’s are in the same age category as the King and Queen and they both seems to be in excellent health and willing to work. They won’t retire

The Kent and Gloucester branches will fade away automatically anyway after the current title holders…

Regarding the senior royals, As long as Charles, Camilla and Anne are in the robust health they are, there is no problems with shortage of people.
Unless a tragedy happens with someone of them, there is no reason to put Beatrice, Eugenie or Louise on the payroll

 

[Curryong]

The Duke of Gloucester is several years older than King Charles. There is no guarantee that his health (or his wife’s) will hold up into their 80s or that they won’t wish to retire into private life in the next five years or so.

And poll after poll for years have shown that Britons between the ages of 18 and 40 don’t identify with the monarchy or members of the RF. A person in their teens or early twenties would find very little in common with elderly royals in their 60s, 70s and 80s, or have very much interest at all in their doings. That is the problem and it’s likely to be an ongoing one as the 21st century progresses.

Why would Beatrice, Eugenie or Louise want to go on the royal payroll? The former seem to be quite content with their careers and private family lives, while Louise is at university studying for a hopefully satisfying career. Add on to that travelling around the country unveiling plaques, shaking hands and opening community centres etc. Don’t think so!

 

[An Ard Ri]

I can imagine The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra gradually slowing down more and more. Not dissapear from public view completely (neither of them are terminally ill so there is no reason for that) but do fewer and fewer outhouse engagements.

The Gloucester’s are in the same age category as the King and Queen and they both seems to be in excellent health and willing to work. They won’t retire

The Kent and Gloucester branches will fade away automatically anyway after the current title holders…

Regarding the senior royals, As long as Charles, Camilla and Anne are in the robust health they are, there is no problems with shortage of people.
Unless a tragedy happens with someone of them, there is no reason to put Beatrice, Eugenie or Louise on the payroll

I agree we will see less and less of The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra

That will leave :
The King
The Queen Consort
The Prince of Wales
The Princess of Wales
The Princess Royal
The Duke of Edinburgh
The Duchess of Edinburgh
The Duke of Gloucester
The Duchess of Gloucester

For example the Spanish RF is slimmed down to the bare minimal and has only 3 working members ,the king ,queen and Queen Sofia. (The Infanta Elena assists from time to time )

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I dislike Civitas and The Daily Express but of course, they're entitled to their views. I just fundamentally disagree with them on most issues.

For decades, surveys have shown that British people are generally in favour of the monarchy but they don't want to pay for 'all the hangers-on'. Our late Queen was right in saying that she "had to be seen to be believed" but that was about her. Nobody saw the Duke of Kent and thought 'I've seen The Queen'. It's the monarch and senior royals that people associate with the crown, not nieces, uncles and cousins. Charles would be wise to continue going down the path that other royal families have taken. If he starts putting Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie on the payroll, it won't be a popular move IMO.

But the thing is the public don’t really pay for the so called hangers on. Plus most people forget that these so called hangers helped the Queen in duties when her children weren’t old enough.

 

[Denville]

If the relatives did royal duties, and assisted the queen, they did receive funding for it. ANd the queen assisted them financially in order to ease the burden on them. Their children have never been working for the Crown, they have mostly worked in jobs of their own choosing. But the man in the street often thinks that everyone in the RF is getting funding from the public.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

If the relatives did royal duties, and assisted the queen, they did receive funding for it. ANd the queen assisted them financially in order to ease the burden on them. Their children have never been working for the Crown, they have mostly worked in jobs of their own choosing. But the man in the street often thinks that everyone in the RF is getting funding from the public.

The public doesn’t pay for security of those royals, clothing expenses or trips. I largely agree with you

 

[Denville]

The public doesn’t pay for security of those royals, clothing expenses or trips. I largely agree with you

sorry what royals are you referring to? People like the D of Kent, D of Glos etc or their children

 

[SirGyamfi1]

sorry what royals are you referring to? People like the D of Kent, D of Glos etc or their children

Both. And when I mean security, I mean when the Gloucesters go out to shop or whatever

 

[Denville]

Both. And when I mean security, I mean when the Gloucesters go out to shop or whatever

Im not sure what you mean, the DUke of G etc, who works for the queen, would get security paid by the public funds when he was on an engagement, if it was considered necessary. He would not get it when out shopping as apart from Charles, William and their families, I dont think anyone gets full time security now. Edward and Sophie and Anne only get security when they are working. And the children of the Gloucerters and kents do not get ANY funding or security, as they dont work for the monarchy.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Im not sure what you mean, the DUke of G etc, who works for the queen, would get security paid by the public funds when he was on an engagement, if it was considered necessary. He would not get it when out shopping as apart from Charles, William and their families, I dont think anyone gets full time security now. Edward and Sophie and Anne only get security when they are working. And the children of the Gloucerters and kents do not get ANY funding or security, as they dont work for the monarchy.

You’ve answered my query the exact way I thought. What I said wasn’t different from what you’ve said. My post you responded to was that the Gloucesters don’t get full time security when I mentioned shopping.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Charlotte won’t receive a dukedom in her own right. Daughters didn’t have a dukedom in their own right. She might get Princess Royal but that’s not a title will be passed on.

Yes I understand that this has been the current practice until now [...]

But this is the 21st century and there's no reason to believe Charlotte wont be treated equally to Louis. But we shall see with time.

“Time to move on”?? In these times no one is being given titles in a whim. It doesn’t matter if it’s the 21st century.

Is it your opinion, then, that Louis will also not receive a dukedom since "In these times no one is being given titles in a whim"?

 

[Hans-Rickard]

The Duke of Gloucester is several years older than King Charles. There is no guarantee that his health (or his wife’s) will hold up into their 80s or that they won’t wish to retire into private life in the next five years or so.

And poll after poll for years have shown that Britons between the ages of 18 and 40 don’t identify with the monarchy or members of the RF. A person in their teens or early twenties would find very little in common with elderly royals in their 60s, 70s and 80s, or have very much interest at all in their doings. That is the problem and it’s likely to be an ongoing one as the 21st century progresses.

Why would Beatrice, Eugenie or Louise want to go on the royal payroll? The former seem to be quite content with their careers and private family lives, while Louise is at university studying for a hopefully satisfying career. Add on to that travelling around the country unveiling plaques, shaking hands and opening community centres etc. Don’t think so!

The Duke of Gloucester is born 1944, The Duchess of Gloucester 1946, The Queen 1947 and The King 1948

So i wouldn’t call that several years

Ofcourse there is no guarantees in anything but that’s the truth for anyone regardless of age

Most younger people don’t care about the monarchy apart from weddings and big celebrations (until they get older and interested in their own history)

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Is it your opinion, then, that Louis will also not receive a dukedom since "In these times no one is being given titles in a whim"?

They might consider not giving Louis one if he won’t be a working royal or he might get the Edinburgh title in his lifetime (not hereditary) if he will be involved will be involved in the Duke of Edinburgh awards. Charlotte will probably be Princess Royal after Anne passes on if the title will be granted again.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

I agree we will see less and less of The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra

That will leave :
The King
The Queen Consort
The Prince of Wales
The Princess of Wales
The Princess Royal
The Duke of Edinburgh
The Duchess of Edinburgh
The Duke of Gloucester
The Duchess of Gloucester

For example the Spanish RF is slimmed down to the bare minimal and has only 3 working members ,the king ,queen and Queen Sofia. (The Infanta Elena assists from time to time )

I agree. That will likely be the future.

And as long as no major illness’ or early death’s occurs, there will be no risk at shortage of people until George, Charlotte and Louis are old enough to start taking on royal engagements

 

[Denville]

Nobody gets full time security now, except for the most senior of royals, ie the King and his wife and Will and his family. Even the kings siblings dont get it unless they are working.. so of course a cousin like the D of GLoucester would not get it when shopping. But his children dont work for the King so they would not get security or any payment or expenses.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

The Monarchy (and Royal Family) has always gone through through downward spirals and upwards. Moment where the support for it were high and moment where it was low. Popularly has always gone up and down since 1600s at least. It was not that long ago that they were unpopular and support for monarchy was as low at 50-60%. It was even lower apparently at the time at the abdication. Support and popularity was also down during the middle years of Queen Victoria reign.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

I wouldn't be surprised if the British Royal Family goes under the radar for the next decade after HM's coronation, quietly doing their work without much fanfare. TRH The Prince and Princess of Wales are still very popular but by now well-established as opposed to new and exciting. Other members of the royal family will probably get married and have (more) children, but it won't get as much press or intrigue as it would from a member of the main branch. Barring tragedy, HM The Queen will probably live for another 15 years and HM The King at least another 20. I believe that extreme interest will rev up again when the Wales children are adults.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I wouldn't be surprised if the British Royal Family goes under the radar for the next decade after HM's coronation, quietly doing their work without much fanfare. TRH The Prince and Princess of Wales are still very popular but by now well-established as opposed to new and exciting. Other members of the royal family will probably get married and have (more) children, but it won't get as much press or intrigue as it would from a member of the main branch. Barring tragedy, HM The Queen will probably live for another 15 years and HM The King at least another 20. I believe that extreme interest will rev up again when the Wales children are adults.

Personal popularity and likeability of members of the royal family is not the same as having the conviction that a hereditary monarchy is the best form of state.

Quite usually one will find in the one and same survey, under the same respondents, that some individual royals have quite high personal approval ratings while at the same time the support for the hereditary monarchy nevertheless is eroding.

All monarchs know this and it is not exactly that monarchy alone. Also the respect and trust and authority of the Church, the judiciary, the media, the scientific profession, the institutions of state: it is all plummeting worldwide. The monarchy, as an embodiment of State, is never immune for the general trend.

 

[yukari]

The latest poll:

Coronation: How popular is the monarchy under King Charles?

(...)

To gauge the public mood ahead of the coronation, Panorama commissioned*a new YouGov opinion poll. The results suggest broad support for keeping the monarchy, with 58% preferring it to an elected head of state - which was supported by 26%.

(...)

While over-65s were the most likely to be supportive of the monarchy at 78%, 18-24 year olds were the least likely. Only 32% backed the monarchy. This younger group was more likely, at 38%, to prefer an elected head of state, although the remaining 30% didn't know.

(...)

 

[HRHTalDuchess]

The British Monarchy isn't going anywhere. It will evolve. It's a moneymaker for Britain in terms of tourism.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The British Monarchy isn't going anywhere. It will evolve. It's a moneymaker for Britain in terms of tourism.

Heu... France and Italy have no monarchy and dwarf the UK in tourism. I have never met anyone booking tickets and hotels to the UK because of Charles or William. Never.

Likewise I have never met anyone whom booked a ticket to Madrid or any other capital because of Felipe or another monarch, for that reason. Even Monte-Carlo will be more visited to gasp at all that displayed wealth in the streets, the Lamborghinis, the Ferraris, the Bugattis. The yachts in the marina. The circuit of the Grand-Prix. The famous casino. That there is a nice princely palace with an Albert residing in it: I doubt it makes Monte-Carlo decisive in booking a trip.

 

[Curryong]

Yes I agree. Versailles is immensely popular with tourists. There hasn’t been a monarch near it for centuries. France tops all the European countries in tourism and Italy is not far behind.

 

[yukari]

I think the question would be how significant the RF contributes to tourism in Britain (particularly London)?

Maybe not many would go to England for William or Charles, but many have flocked down to London for Royal Wedding, Trooping the Colour, Jubilee, and in next few day, the Coronation. Those are things that I don't think will happen with the abolishment of the monarchy. Would there still be Changing Guards ceremony at Buckingham Palace if it no longer a monarch's residence since there's no monarchy anymore? I really don't think MoD will put their active servicemen there just for tourist attractions.

 

[Erin9]

The Future of the British Monarchy

Yes I agree. Versailles is immensely popular with tourists. There hasn’t been a monarch near it for centuries. France tops all the European countries in tourism and Italy is not far behind.

Off the subject, but I think the Schonbrunn in Vienna is far superior to Versailles. Not to mention less crowded. Lol- but to your point- tons of tourists in Paris, in particular.

I did like that when I visited London I got to see working palaces. I went to both Windsor and Buckingham. It was a nice selling point. But- that’s not why I’m visiting a particular city/country either.

I don’t see the British monarchy going anywhere anytime soon though. It’s a 1,000 year old institution. It’s evolved and adapted over the centuries to survive and will likely continue to do imo. I think it would likely take some kind of disaster for it to fall. People would have to feel strongly enough about it to take the time to dismantle it.

 

[A Tudor]

Every country has its aura and personality. France, among other things, is all about glamour, great cuisine and a very chic environment, built over centuries. Italy is all about the classics, not to mention the religious appeal and the great beaches during the summer.


Not to be detrimental to the UK, and this is very subjective of course, but a large part of the British appeal is tradition, the "British" way of doing things and, clearly, the Royals (not the individuals but the whole institution) are a great part of that.



You may not find any people buying tickets to see Charles or William, but you'll be surprised at how many tourists are coming home with some royal souvenir, for example.



In some ways, it's just like Rome and the Pope. You may not even see the man when visiting the city, but knowing he's there is part of the city's charm.

 

[Mbruno]

Yes I agree. Versailles is immensely popular with tourists. There hasn’t been a monarch near it for centuries. France tops all the European countries in tourism and Italy is not far behind.

The logic is flawed. The fact that France and Italy dwarf the UK in number of tourists does not prove that abolishing the monarchy would have no impact on the number of tourists in the UK, nor does it disprove the OP's statement that the Royal Family contributes to boosting tourism in the UK.


Having said that, I don't think a concern about international tourism is what is preventing the UK from becoming a republic. The reasons why the British people and the British political class choose to keep the monarchy are far more complex than that.

 

[Curryong]

New Ipsos poll on the popularity of members of the RF. In my opinion non working members shouldn’t be included. However….

https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/28/most...n a survey of 4,000,then Princess Anne at 25%.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...hobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1682639265-1

Most popular are Kate then William. King Charles is fifth, followed by Harry, then Meghan, followed by Camilla, and then the York Princesses.

 

[Muhler]

Any of the King's grandchildren?!? - That's an odd option.
And how about Edward's family? His wife and daughter, both of whom appears otherwise to be well liked. (Yes, I left out his son.)

Everything considering H&M get a pretty good ranking.

I have a feeling that many of those who answered just came up with the first name they could think of, so this might perhaps better be renamed to who is the most well known or well liked within the BRF.

 

[Curryong]

Sophie Edinburgh is rarely mentioned in any of these polls, including the YouGov ones which are pretty accurate. I don’t think Louise is very well known among ordinary Britons.

However the results for the King and especially the Queen are pretty disastrous imo.