The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Tatiana Maria]

Yes indeed. Always strikes me as weird that some republicans(who often consider themselves so modern& progressive) make such blatantly xenophobic comments.

I think it's just an argument they exploit, rather than one they care about themselves.

But for whom would the argument be intended, if not themselves?

....am I in the wrong place?

What are you looking to find?

 

[Alison H]

I was watching something last night which made the very valid point that the biggest threat to the monarchy is irrelevance - but I think many people still feel that the monarchy is relevant. Maybe younger people don't so much, but older people probably didn't when *they* younger: people tend to have less appetite for change as they grow older. There's also the issue of an alternative - which would presumably be an elected president representing one of the two main parties. One thing pretty much everyone agrees on, after the shenanigans of the last three years, is having a very low opinion of politicians - I'm not sure people would be so keen on a republic when they stopped to think that it would mean having a politician as head of state.

 

[Lilyflo]

But for whom would the argument be intended, if not themselves?

Republican groups mainly use economic & democratic arguments but the casting of the BRF as German by some republicans is aimed at those people whose notion of Britishness is linked to the monarch so the purpose is to erode their loyalty to the crown by diluting the family's Britishness.

As to the general enquiry about the future of the monarchy, I think it'll be OK because we don't do revolution here (not recently anyway!) so it would have to be part of a democratic process whereby the government held a referendum. That's not going to happen until one of the leading parties decides it's in their own best interest to do that (eg they're under pressure from noisy republicans within their own party). It would also require some popular newspapers to promote anti-monarchy propaganda, which is possible as at least one proprietor is a republican. Polling shows it's possible to whip the public up on a single issue eg for decades, a tiny minority cited membership of the EU as an important issue but once the government decided to have a referendum, it became one of people's top concerns. So overall, abolishing the monarchy is unlikely to happen until there's a political will, backed by the popular press & funded by billionaires.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Republican groups mainly use economic & democratic arguments but the casting of the BRF as German by some republicans is aimed at those people whose notion of Britishness is linked to the monarch so the purpose is to erode their loyalty to the crown by diluting the family's Britishness.

I can understand the strategy of challenging the "Britishness" of the monarchy, but the argument that their German descent dilutes the family's Britishness would only be effective with people whose notion of Britishness also excludes people of foreign descent - even partial foreign descent from a fellow Western European country. Given the diversity of the general population it seems unlikely that many British people, apart from those making the argument themselves, would share those sentiments.

 

[wyevale]

Given the diversity of the general population it seems unlikely that many British people, apart from those making the argument themselves, would share those sentiments.

Absolutely correct - it is so funny that the people making this argument 'pride themselves' on their *woke* credentials, yet are prepared to use an absolutely xenophobic/racist trope against an institution they seek [by ANY means possible] to undermine..
THeir argument [as you say] has very little traction in a multi-cultural Nation such as Britain..

 

[Lilyflo]

I can understand the strategy of challenging the "Britishness" of the monarchy, but the argument that their German descent dilutes the family's Britishness would only be effective with people whose notion of Britishness also excludes people of foreign descent - even partial foreign descent from a fellow Western European country.

Those are the people it's aimed at. Like I said, it's not the main argument used but if you want a political change, you'll use every angle to cover every demographic.

 

[Lilyflo]

Absolutely correct - it is so funny that the people making this argument 'pride themselves' on their *woke* credentials, yet are prepared to use an absolutely xenophobic/racist trope against an institution they seek [by ANY means possible] to undermine..
THeir argument [as you say] has very little traction in a multi-cultural Nation such as Britain..

As we've seen recently, there are politicians who are very willing to use arguments, dog whistles & tropes they don't believe themselves in order to achieve the change they want. Yes, we're a multi-cultural nation but we also have bigots, xenophobes and racists upon whom such propaganda can be effective.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I was watching something last night which made the very valid point that the biggest threat to the monarchy is irrelevance - but I think many people still feel that the monarchy is relevant. Maybe younger people don't so much, but older people probably didn't when *they* younger: people tend to have less appetite for change as they grow older. There's also the issue of an alternative - which would presumably be an elected president representing one of the two main parties. One thing pretty much everyone agrees on, after the shenanigans of the last three years, is having a very low opinion of politicians - I'm not sure people would be so keen on a republic when they stopped to think that it would mean having a politician as head of state.

To be relevant people have to be able to relate and young people will struggle as the years go by.

In two years time there won't be a working royal under 40. Even worse, in 22 years time there won't be any full time royals under 60 (George will still be doing his military training and they can't expect him to step up at a younger age than William did himself.).

That will be the big problem - only two working royals in William's generation not that Harry and Meghan have quit.

The Queen's generation had 8 at the maximum and still has 5 over a 20 year age range (93 - 73 - The Queen to the Duchess of Gloucester). Charles' generation at its maximum had 6 and now 5 with a 17 year range (72 - 55 - Duchess of Cornwall to Countess of Wessex - but only two under 60 now and soon three over 70). In William's generation there are two - aged 38 and 37 - turning 38 this year.

To 'young people' today a person in their late 30s isn't 'young'.

When Harry was getting married I had a Year 8 class and when they asked me who the 'young royals were and I said William, Catherine, Harry and Meghan the reply back was 'they aren't 'young' ... they are older than my parents'. These kids are now 16 and they see anyone over 30 as 'old' but a 6 year old is a 'baby'. This is the generation for whom the royal family will lack relevance as there is no one doing the things they are doing.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But in 22 years' time, the now 16-year-old, who will then be age 38, will probably no longer view a 28-year-old Prince George as a "baby".

In any case, the often called for "slimming down" of the royal family is irreconciliable with the aim of representing a range of ages among the working royals. A gap between successive generations is unavoidable unless multiple lines of the family are included (as an example, the York princesses and Wessex children would bridge the age gap between the Cambridges and their children) or royal couples revert to marrying and having children in their teens as they did historically.

Edited to add: It would also be avoidable if royal couples had large gaps in between having children: for example, if the Duke of Cambridge had become father to Prince George at the age of 20, Princess Charlotte at the age of 30, and Prince Louis at the age of 40, and Prince George did the same in his turn.

 

[Queen Claude]

I've always been dubious of the slimmed down monarchy (limiting working royals to the monarch, heirs apparent and their children) due to me thinking that the monarchy will naturally be slimmed down due to the lower birth rate and the possibility that one of those from the designated pool would temporarily or permanently opt out which is what happened recently.

I do think it matters that the younger generations be visible, but they do not need to be working royals to be visible. If George, Charlotte and Louis are willing to show up at Trooping the Colour, Sandringham Christmas walks, balcony appearances, etc., allow photos to be released of milestones like birthdays, and as a bonus have a pet cause that they want to promote, then IMO that will suffice if they are not working royals until their late twenties or thirties.

 

[Denville]

I do hope it changes ..I asked in another thread if it was worrying that Charles would not have public support once he becomes king, and everyone who responded said “no”. Still....for all the good he’s done, for all the burst of goodwill he received after walking Meghan down the aisle, he’ll never be able to overcome the Diana years; it almost seems he’s hated. I don’t worry at all for the future of the monarchy - it’s in good hands with Charles and William - but I do worry that Charles, being generally unpopular, will have a hard time.

He may not be much loved but he'll be OK. he's a wealthy privileged man who has a role that means a lot ot him and he will go on doing his job. He went through bad times during the Diana years and I daresay tahtt he knows now that he may not be very popular but he has come through those bad times and survivied. He has a busy life, a wife that he's contented with.. and I think he's a reasonably happy man these days. Of course the monarchy may not last but nothing lasts forever and if it ended when William was king I don't tink it would break Will's heart..

 

[Betsypaige]

He may not be much loved but he'll be OK. he's a wealthy privileged man who has a role that means a lot ot him and he will go on doing his job. He went through bad times during the Diana years and I daresay tahtt he knows now that he may not be very popular but he has come through those bad times and survivied. He has a busy life, a wife that he's contented with.. and I think he's a reasonably happy man these days. Of course the monarchy may not last but nothing lasts forever and if it ended when William was king I don't tink it would break Will's heart..

Oh, I know Charles will get in with it, that being unpopular hasn’t stopped him, but it will make things harder on him. He won’t get credit for any good thing he does - or, even if he’s just doing what his mother does, he’ll very likely somehow be criticized. This isn’t me judging the British, but it’s more a commentary on people in general, who tend to be rough on those in “power” (I put that word in quotes because I understand that the monarch has no real power’ who they don’t like


I can’t imagine William being so blasé as to not care if the monarchy ended with his reign ...I don’t think he’d be happy, actually; he’s been raised to be king. I seriously doubt he’d want to go down in history as the last ever king of England

 

[Iluvbertie]

William won't be the last King of England - unless the UK breaks up. That honour belongs to William III.

There hasn't been a King/Queen of England since 1707.

 

[Betsypaige]

William won't be the last King of England - unless the UK breaks up. That honour belongs to William III.

There hasn't been a King/Queen of England since 1707.

Ok, so King of England, Scotland, etc...My point was that William would not be happy if he were the last of a thousand years of monarchs

 

[Iluvbertie]

The title of the monarch does not include the places - England, Scotland or Wales. The title is 'of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. Using the term England for the UK is the same as using Texas for the USA.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Seems to be several proud of their knowledge of the past, but have no opinion of the future? I picked this thread to try and learn what you all think about the future of the British monarchy....am I in the wrong place?

You only read a few posts. A common criticism of the current royal family is that they were somehow "German" and therefore foreign. We were saying that previous royalty was also from other countries.

 

[Helen.CH]

I only read a couple of posts here, what surprises me when talking about the end of monarchy is that the British hardly seem to reflect on the current political system they got.
The monarch himself has no power, Britain has no constitution only laws...but there is still the house of Lords.....
a democracy yes but somehow weird because not the people has the power but the parliament which is a big difference to other european democracies.
In Britain only a few are really elected, still others appointed, some by heritage, some.....
if things would change this would not only mean to get the monarch away but to find a constitution......nothing is impossible but in Britain this would mean a real big deal.
I won't live it but am sure that monarchies are out in a few generations because mankind will change so much.

 

[Denville]

I only read a couple of posts here, what surprises me when talking about the end of monarchy is that the British hardly seem to reflect on the current political system they got.
The monarch himself has no power, Britain has no constitution only laws...but there is still the house of Lords.....
a democracy yes but somehow weird because not the people has the power but the parliament which is a big difference to other european democracies.
In Britain only a few are really elected, still others appointed, some by heritage, some.....
if things would change this would not only mean to get the monarch away but to find a constitution......nothing is impossible but in Britain this would mean a real big deal.
I won't live it but am sure that monarchies are out in a few generations because mankind will change so much.

? what do You mean only a few are really elected? Parliament is elected by the people. the House of Lords has only been an "adjusting and revision of laws chamber" for about 100 years, and has had no power. It is no different to other democracies.

 

[QueenMathilde]

I only read a couple of posts here, what surprises me when talking about the end of monarchy is that the British hardly seem to reflect on the current political system they got.
The monarch himself has no power, Britain has no constitution only laws...but there is still the house of Lords.....
a democracy yes but somehow weird because not the people has the power but the parliament which is a big difference to other european democracies.
In Britain only a few are really elected, still others appointed, some by heritage, some.....
if things would change this would not only mean to get the monarch away but to find a constitution......nothing is impossible but in Britain this would mean a real big deal.
I won't live it but am sure that monarchies are out in a few generations because mankind will change so much.

Well the monarchy has survived for a thousand years (more if you're going back further than William the Conqueror). So I wouldn't count it out now.


I only mentioned that the previous poster hadn't read very far back is because she said we were discussing the history of the monarchy not about whether the monarchy would survive. I was telling her (or maybe him) why we were talking about that.



You don't have to read the whole long thread.


And the Monarch has much more power than you'd think. She's not just a figurehead.


On a side note this popped up on my youtube feed - apparently Sky News released it two weeks ago. Thought people might be interested - it is short.

 

[Alison H]

I think most people would be quite glad to see the back of the House of Lords, especially at the moment, when opinions of Parliament generally are not very high, and especially given that the unelected "Lords" can get an expenses allowance of around £300 per day just for turning up for 5 minutes. However, there's only so much parliamentary time, and there are other, far more pressing, matters, to take that up. Abolishing the Lords is like mending the shed door or the side gate, or looking to see if you could get your gas and electricity cheaper from a different supplier … you know that you should really get round to doing it, but you've got a million more pressing things to do and there are only 24 hours in a day!

 

[Blog Real]

I think the British monarchy is going to last a long time. I don't think William is going to be the last monarch in the UK.
The British monarchy is one of the safest in Europe.
I think the monarchies will still last a few decades, then it will soon be seen ....

 

[QueenMathilde]

That will be the big problem - only two working royals in William's generation not that Harry and Meghan have quit.

Well, I've thought about that. But it assumes that Archie won't grow up and want to "rejoin" the royal family. It occurs to me the Queen might have thought of that too.


That might be why she didn't strip Harry and Meghan of their titles when they quit (not even the HRH). Even if they decide they don't want to go back Archie might.



Or any future children Harry might have.

 

[Iluvbertie]

That still won't help the only two working royals in William's generation.

George's is easier as he has two siblings so could easily end up with 5 or 6 to do the work but with Harry quitting it puts a huge load on William and Catherine.

As for stripping titles - the Queen can remove HRH but not the peerage title - that can only be done by parliament and historically they have only done so in the case of treason.

 

[QueenMathilde]

As for stripping titles - the Queen can remove HRH but not the peerage title - that can only be done by parliament and historically they have only done so in the case of treason.

I wondered about that. I read where the queen "choose" not to strip them of their Duke and Duchess title. But I also read where Parliament had to do it. It seems to me if the Queen could have stripped any of them of their titles it would have been Diana and Fergie back in the day.



So now that they're out "Master" Archie won't even get a Prince title? Or an HRH? Am I right?

 

[Pranter]

I wondered about that. I read where the queen "choose" not to strip them of their Duke and Duchess title. But I also read where Parliament had to do it. It seems to me if the Queen could have stripped any of them of their titles it would have been Diana and Fergie back in the day.



So now that they're out "Master" Archie won't even get a Prince title? Or an HRH? Am I right?

They've not been stripped of anything, they are still HRH The Duke/Duchess of Sussex..they have agreed they won't use the HRH but they still have it. Unless something is changed (they work out a deal like Sophie/Edward and their kids etc) Archie will become HRH when Charles is the Monarch.




LaRae

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I wondered about that. I read where the queen "choose" not to strip them of their Duke and Duchess title. But I also read where Parliament had to do it. It seems to me if the Queen could have stripped any of them of their titles it would have been Diana and Fergie back in the day.

Parliament would be needed to strip the peerage legally, but there was an unconfirmed claim that Queen Elizabeth considered requiring the couple to stop using the Duke and Duchess titles and use their Earl and Countess titles instead.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...han-to-earl-and-countess-titles-a4339031.html

So now that they're out "Master" Archie won't even get a Prince title? Or an HRH? Am I right?

The Palace unofficially communicated at the time of Archie's birth that he would receive the HRH and Prince titles upon his grandfather's reign. No changes to those plans have been announced.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...e-a-prince-once-charles-is-king-a4137941.html

 

[Denville]

However that was at the time of Archie's birth. Im sure they didn't envisage a situation where H and Meghan would give up royal duties. If they are not doing royal duties, even if they retain their HRH which they will problaby do, it may well be that they don't want Archie to have it and Charles will agree to that.

 

[Alison H]

It'd be nice to think that Archie would rejoin the Royal Family, but he's only a baby and he presumably wouldn't be able to make that choice until he was at least 18. It'd be very weird to opt into the royal way of life when you'd spent all your life living outside it.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am skeptical of the idea that Archie was ever regarded as a future working royal, even when his parents were full-time working members. The fact that the York princesses were not offered the option demonstrates that four working royals in a generation (the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex) was thought to meet the needs of the monarchy. Following that model, there were, by the time Archie was born, already five people who were expected to serve as working royals in his generation (Prince George and his future wife, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis and his future wife), which already represented an increase from the four working royals in his father's generation.

 

[QueenMathilde]

They've not been stripped of anything, they are still HRH The Duke/Duchess of Sussex..they have agreed they won't use the HRH but they still have it. Unless something is changed (they work out a deal like Sophie/Edward and their kids etc) Archie will become HRH when Charles is the Monarch.




LaRae

OK here's another question. Harry and Meghan supposedly want to raise Archie as a "commoner". So are these titles automatic or can they refuse them?