The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Denville]

When you look at the outcry over the taxpayer money spent on Frogmore Cottage, for example, which was for a supposedly popular royal couple can you imagine the reaction if B and E were put on the public payroll?

there is always grumbling about things like that. Will and Kate got the same over their apartment.. but if B and E do start to take on some work, I think it would be on a limited basis, with just a small number of engagements, and expenses for them.. they would not be full time royals...

 

[Moonmaiden23]

When you look at the outcry over the taxpayer money spent on Frogmore Cottage, for example, which was for a supposedly popular royal couple can you imagine the reaction if B and E were put on the public payroll?

The "public" can be a decidedly fickle group. I can remember when the majority of Brits felt that Prince Charles should never be allowed to marry Camilla Parker Bowles unless he was willing to forfeit his place in Succession. That seems like a lifetime ago now

The hue and cry over renovations to Frogmore did not make a dent in the sizes of the crowds who came out to cheer on the Harry and Meghan Show. And besides there is a great difference in millions in public funds spent on home renovations-which were frankly needed anyway-to a stipend being paid to Royals who are working hard on behalf of Queen and Commonwealth.

It's like another poster stated very well...if you want a monarchy there are going to be costs involved. And if you want a democratic republic there are going to be even MORE costs involved, along with no end of self interested, incompetent public "servants" to vote in or out every few years. Rinse and repeat.

Be careful what you wish for, anti- monarchists.

 

[ACO]

Why people assuming Beatrice and Eugenie even want this? They have their own lives and have been living it for many years now. They weren't good enough to be full time until two others leave? I would pass on that principle alone. Anyways I don't even think it is true they will be asked to "step up" anyways. Charles, Camilla, William and Kate will just be seen out more and more. Next week's joint engagement is a statement one.

 

[Denville]

The "public" can be a decidedly fickle group. I can remember when the majority of Brits felt that Prince Charles should never be allowed to marry Camilla Parker Bowles unless he was willing to forfeit his place in Succession. That seems like a lifetime ago now

The hue and cry over renovations to Frogmore did not make a dent in the sizes of the crowds who came out to cheer them. And besides there is a great difference in millions in public funds spent on home renovations-which were frankly needed anyway-to a stipend being paid to Royals who are working hard on behalf of Queen and Commonwealth.

It's like another poster stated very well...if you want a monarchy there are going to be costs involved. And if you want a democratic republic there are going to be even MORE costs involved, along with no end of self interested, incompetent public "servants" to vote in or out.

Be careful what you wish for, anti- monarchists.

If people want an end to a monarchy they have a prefect right to have that viewpoint and to get rid of a monarchy. the behaviour of many royals in the UK has not been exemplary of late and its not good.
Charles hasn't forfeited his Place in the succession but he has never really regained his former popularity and now H and Meg's walk out wil probably mean that they are not likely to be welcomed back.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

The British people do indeed have a right to be rid of the monarchy and to choose their own form of Government. The point is that they have not, despite recent discontent over the behavior of a few member of the ruling House, been ill advised enough to throw out the baby with the bathwater by abolishing the monarchy.

Charles was never particularly popular beginning with the deterioration of his first marriage.

A Republic is NOT more cost effective and you will not necessarily get more exemplary representation from one.

On that, i can assure you.

 

[ACO]

That may be the case but If that is so, then I think that the RF are moving towards slimming down and only concentrating on the essentials. If you feel that what they do is just to "justify their existence", then there's no real justifacaiton for a monarchy at all. But I don't think ti would look good to drop all the charities at once...

Well isn't that the argument if their existence? This idea that people are seen better than others and people have to fund them solely on the chance of birth?

There are many pros and cons to this institution. I don't see it ending anytime soon but as with life it will evolve. It already is.

 

[Denville]

The British people do indeed have a right to be rid of the monarchy and to choose their own form of Government. The point is that they have not, despite recent discontent over the behavior of a few member of the ruling House, been ill advised enough to throw out the baby with the bathwater by abolishing the monarchy.

Charles was never particularly popular beginning with the deterioration of his first marriage.

A democracy is NOT more cost effective and you will not necessarily get more exemplary representation from one.

On that, i can assure you.

Charles was very popular as a young man and he became very unpopular with te braek up of his marriage. My point is that while he's still accepted by the public he is not that popular and its possible that If he were King, another scandal might see the end of the house of Windsor. I am pretty fed up with many of them and think it mgitht be for the best, though I like Charles.
And Britain IS a democracy. It is a constitutional monarchy with the Royals being accepted in their position, because the people are wiling to accept them. If that changes they are out.

 

[Denville]

Well isn't that the argument if their existence? This idea that people are seen better than others and people have to fund them solely on the chance of birth?

There are many pros and cons to this institution. I don't see it ending anytime soon but as with life it will evolve. It already is.

No they are not seen as better than others. They have a privileged positon which they have inherited and they receive funding to do the job of head of state.. They are expected to make an effort to promote charities in order to give back to the community and to behave reasonably respectably. If they don't make that effort, if they lose the confidence of the people they may well be out.

 

[Alison H]

There are a lot of rumours about Beatrice and Eugenie stepping up - should they want to, which they may well not, at this stage in their lives - but nothing's actually been said. I think it's just that the Royal Family is now very short of working members and there isn't really anyone else. The Kents and Gloucesters still do a fair bit, but you would think that they'll be retiring before too long.

 

[Osipi]

When you look at the outcry over the taxpayer money spent on Frogmore Cottage, for example, which was for a supposedly popular royal couple can you imagine the reaction if B and E were put on the public payroll?

What public payroll? All working expenses for the "Firm" are paid for by the Queen through the Sovereign Grant. The Queen receives 25% of the profits earned by the Crown Estates to do just this. She will receive the same amount of money yearly whether she has 50 people working for the "Firm" or 5. The funding for Frogmore Cottage also came from the Sovereign Grant and I understand it is also being reimbursed for the renovations.

The only thing the public will pay for directly is for Beatrice and Eugenie's security when they are working for the "Firm".

I just don't see it happening. These two women have established themselves in careers with one married and one about to be married and both may wish to start families. Its not about if they're popular or any other reasons than they perhaps may choose not to be a full time working royal for the "Firm". I seriously doubt the Queen would force this on them.

 

[Zonk]

Let's not make this another thread about Harry and Meghan.

I've deleted 33 off topic posts that basically have been posted (and discussed in GREAT detail) in at least THREE other threads about Harry and Meghan leaving the firm, trading off their titles, etc.)

It's time to move on.

 

[Madame Verseau]

The BRF image has taken a big hit for one; it is believed in quarters that the Windsors did little to nothing to protecting Meghan from racist and xenophobic attacks on her and some believe specific royals aided and abetted the press with the viciousness. Harry and Meghan are not allowed to use HRH and Andrew can when he is in worse circumstances has rubbed people the wrong way. Two - Andrew. He still has the Epstein stench on him to the point that local governments do not want to fly the flag on his birthday and and bells at WA ringing are a no go. Right or wrong Beatrice and Eugenie are getting the run off of bad will because of their dad's issues. I think it may be part of the decision for Bea to have her wedding at the chapel at St James Palace. Who wants protesters outside the church chanting "Lock Him Up" or worse to the father of the bride as he escorts his daughter inside the church?

The negative perceptions are not going to go away soon no matter what streamlining is done. The PR arm of the Firm needs to read the room better and fix things for all parties involved for better perceptions of the Windsors as a whole. But this will take time.

 

[Alison H]

I know that opinion polls don't necessarily mean anything, but one out today shows that 43% of people think that the Queen is the best person to represent the UK, and 25% think that Prince William is ... compared to only 9% who say the Prime Minister. (Prince Charles did not rank so high, but I think that's the lack of glamour factor.) That's not a dig at Boris personally: I'm sure that the figure would be far less than 9% if certain other people were Prime Minister, and not that much higher even for more popular PMs in the past. But it does show that people place a lot of value on having a head of state who is above the divisiveness of politics.


I'm not hearing anyone in the UK criticise the Royal Family over Harry and Meghan. There's been some criticism of the press, but not of the other royals. Who exactly is supposed to have "aided the press with their viciousness"? The only people whose image has been damaged are Harry and Meghan themselves, and, as they are no longer working royals, that is not relevant.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I know that opinion polls don't necessarily mean anything, but one out today....

Which opinion poll is that?

 

[Alison H]

It's in the Express. It may be in other papers too - it's a general poll about various subjects (including some really stupid ones like which celebs people would like to spend Valentine's Day with!) but that was one of the questions. A lot of people - not just in the UK, but in other countries too - are fed up with politicians and how unpleasant everything's got. I'm not sure that many people have got the stomach for the idea of a politician replacing the Queen as head of state.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There are a lot of rumours about Beatrice and Eugenie stepping up - should they want to, which they may well not, at this stage in their lives - but nothing's actually been said. I think it's just that the Royal Family is now very short of working members and there isn't really anyone else. The Kents and Gloucesters still do a fair bit, but you would think that they'll be retiring before too long.

Why would the Gloucesters be retiring? They are the same age basically as Charles and Camilla - being only 4 and 2 years older than Charles. Richard may be the Queen's first cousin but he is more of Charles' generation than she is. In fact he and his older brother, William, were very much like older brothers to Charles and he adored them, particularly William - after whom he named his own elder son.

The Duke of Kent has even said he won't retire while the Queen lives as he feels he has to keep working as long as she does - simply because he is nearly 10 years her junior. Health may see him, and his sister, retire but nothing else.

Currently the BRF are three working members less than they had this time last year and only two fewer than they had two years ago, when Meghan joined them.

One factor that I do think should be considered in this discussion is Beatrice's job, which is in New York City. Is she going to continue working in NYC while her husband works in London or is she going to work in some other way. Maybe her marriage is a time for her to take up some of the engagements that the three departing working members would have done in the UK while she tries to make her job and marriage work in some way.

 

[kbk]

In fact he and his older brother, William, were very much like older brothers to Charles and he adored them, particularly William - after whom he named his own elder son.

Offtopic. What are the grounds for you saying that they were so close to Charles? Do you have any source confirming that he named his elder son after William? I know the Gloucesters were spending family time with George V and his family and then Elizabeth II and her family but were the boys in those days really close to each other?

 

[Mbruno]

If people want an end to a monarchy they have a prefect right to have that viewpoint and to get rid of a monarchy. the behaviour of many royals in the UK has not been exemplary of late and its not good.
Charles hasn't forfeited his Place in the succession but he has never really regained his former popularity and now H and Meg's walk out wil probably mean that they are not likely to be welcomed back.

My perception of the British people is that they tend to be conservative and less inclined to radical change than perhaps people in other European countries. I don’t see them ditching the monarchy in the next 50 years or so at least unless there is some major event that causes unprecedented social and political upheaval , or if there is a clearly better alternative ( which doesn’t exist now). I don’t think fluctuations in the popularity of individual RF members make that much of a difference. Besides, the Queen remains very popular herself , and I think William and Kate will be a popular royal couple too.

 

[_Heather_]

My perception of the British people is that they tend to be conservative and less inclined to radical change than perhaps people in other European countries. I don’t see them ditching the monarchy in the next 50 years or so at least unless there is some major event that causes unprecedented social and political upheaval , or if there is a clearly better alternative ( which doesn’t exist now). I don’t think fluctuations in the popularity of individual RF members make that much of a difference. Besides, the Queen remains very popular herself , and I think William and Kate will be a popular royal couple too.

Agreed. I realize that we're potentially looking at 25-30 years before we see the Cambridges on the throne but, in reality, they have the potential even then to be very, very popular during their reign. Not that I in any way wish for anything awful for Charles but honestly, it would probably do the RF a lot of good in the long run if the Cambridges took over sooner rather than later.

 

[Alison H]

I think Charles and Camilla are gaining in popularity. Camilla's charity work is admired, and Charles did an excellent job at the Holocaust Memorial Day event. But, unless you're people like Sean Connery and Joan Collins who still look amazing as they head towards 90, it's very hard for an older couple to outshine a much younger, more attractive and glamorous couple ... and Charles was never particularly cool even in his younger days. The Cambridges can still do a lot of good once they're the Waleses, though, with Charles and Camilla as the elder statespeople.

 

[_Heather_]

I think Charles and Camilla are gaining in popularity. Camilla's charity work is admired, and Charles did an excellent job at the Holocaust Memorial Day event. But, unless you're people like Sean Connery and Joan Collins who still look amazing as they head towards 90, it's very hard for an older couple to outshine a much younger, more attractive and glamorous couple ... and Charles was never particularly cool even in his younger days. The Cambridges can still do a lot of good once they're the Waleses, though, with Charles and Camilla as the elder statespeople.

I absolutely agree with all of this. I guess I'm just saying that even though times have changed since the Queen and Prince Philip were the young couple on the throne, having a young, attractive, vibrant, engaging couple on the throne along with their household full of adorable children, is a fabulous way for the monarchy to connect with those younger generations that don't always view them in the same way that older generations might. Not that they can't and won't do fabulous work as Prince and Princess of Wales but that sometimes it's quite beneficial to have a King and Queen that many people juggling the demands of careers, aging parents, and young children can more closely relate to. Good PR, if you will. Frankly, I really like both Charles and Camilla and I have no doubt that they'll be great stewards of the monarchy, I just think the image of a young family on the throne might also be a positive in terms of forming connections with the general public.

 

[Betsypaige]

I absolutely agree with all of this. I guess I'm just saying that even though times have changed since the Queen and Prince Philip were the young couple on the throne, having a young, attractive, vibrant, engaging couple on the throne along with their household full of adorable children, is a fabulous way for the monarchy to connect with those younger generations that don't always view them in the same way that older generations might. Not that they can't and won't do fabulous work as Prince and Princess of Wales but that sometimes it's quite beneficial to have a King and Queen that many people juggling the demands of careers, aging parents, and young children can more closely relate to. Good PR, if you will. Frankly, I really like both Charles and Camilla and I have no doubt that they'll be great stewards of the monarchy, I just think the image of a young family on the throne might also be a positive in terms of forming connections with the general public.

But, that’s life - the monarchy is not an elective office, and there is no choice to be made. The public will always have mixed feelings (to put it mildly) about Charles and Camilla, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be terrific for the monarchy. Whether people are open minded enough to accept them remains to be seen, but King Charles (though I hope he goes by George VII) will do his thing ...and that will be a good thing. Ok, so the image won’t be “young and beautiful”, but I’m good with that; this society is way too infatuated with youth anyway.

 

[ACO]

Agreed. Also who knows what the future holds. Charles has been POWs all his life and when it is time for him to be the King.... I think he will be a good one. I also think William and Kate will also be good as well. I don't doubt any of that. The only thing that will shift any of this is just time.

 

[Count langley]

Why is there a photo of the Dutch enthronement regalia on the British page?

 

[Betsypaige]

Agreed. Also who knows what the future holds. Charles has been POWs all his life and when it is time for him to be the King.... I think he will be a good one. I also think William and Kate will also be good as well. I don't doubt any of that. The only thing that will shift any of this is just time.

Yup, and we shouldn’t forget that sometimes what’s needed is steadiness, steadfastness. I’m not comparing the situations at all, but when George VI became king, he was thought of as sort of dull and uninteresting, if thoroughly decent. He, Queen Elizabeth (future Queen Mother) and their little family were a wonderful tonic for through public after the chaos of the abdication crisis. Anyone following the Queen has a tough act to follow, but Charles’ many years as PoW has left him in fine shape to take over, and he’s no doubt training William wonderfully. I would also add that, for a long while, it was Harry that was considered the flashy, exciting one while many considered William to be stodgy and dull (making fun of his going bald, etc). When Charles is king, George, Charlotte and Louis will be older and I’m sure we’ll see more of therm, so they will help liven things up, lol

 

[Durham]

Yup, and we shouldn’t forget that sometimes what’s needed is steadiness, steadfastness. I’m not comparing the situations at all, but when George VI became king, he was thought of as sort of dull and uninteresting, if thoroughly decent. He, Queen Elizabeth (future Queen Mother) and their little family were a wonderful tonic for through public after the chaos of the abdication crisis. Anyone following the Queen has a tough act to follow, but Charles’ many years as PoW has left him in fine shape to take over, and he’s no doubt training William wonderfully. I would also add that, for a long while, it was Harry that was considered the flashy, exciting one while many considered William to be stodgy and dull (making fun of his going bald, etc). When Charles is king, George, Charlotte and Louis will be older and I’m sure we’ll see more of therm, so they will help liven things up, lol

Absolutely. Dull is good. Dutifulness is even better.

At the end of her memoirs Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester (I'm paraphrasing here) said something along the lines of how she felt grateful to all the people who had come out to greet her over the years. She made the telling point that this was not because of her as an individual but because of what she represented.

I haven't read the book for along time & no longer have a copy. If anyone on here does maybe they'd like to check I've not just made all that up I'm pretty sure I haven't

 

[OtagoLass]

I think the Royal Family will put more emphasis on Sophie and Edward this year, Royal family need some good PR at the moment and those two give off a positive vibe these days.

I know Edward's had a sketchy past with the public and they were both a bit of a PR disaster themselves backed in the early 2000s re their business careers and of course royal knockout. But I think the public have largely moved on since then, Edward seems to have grown on people and Sophie has has a lot more popularity, the number of engagements they both do and the support they have given to the Queen and Phillip for many years, have kept out of controversy, no affairs or got divorced etc.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In my humble opinion The Firm needs a thorough re-think of the concept. When Queen Elizabeth started her Reign, it was the start of the media era: her Coronation was the first live Eurovision broadcast.

But the workings of the monarchy remained the same as under her father King George V and under her grandfather King George V: see and be seen. The people need to see the royal family and the royal family needs to see the people. But now, in the 2020's, we have reached a visibility of both the royal family as well the people, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. On TV, in newspapers and magazines, online. And the people talk back: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tiktok or forums like this one. An unstoppable stream of news, reviews, comments, etc.

That begs the question why, in this multimedia age, the extended royal family has to conduct 3,000 public engagements each year with barely any ripple or impact. Even on forums for royalty addicts like this one, the Duke of Gloucester visiting a cutlery company or the Princess Royal passing by Dogs For The Deaf barely causes any ripple.

That brings the question why the taxpayer should fund the travel, the assistance, the logistics, the security for Princess Alexandra to open a day centre in the East Midlands for example? Couldn't the local Mayoress of the local town do it just as well? Or the local noble family with bonds to the locals. Why not the Duchess of Rutland opening it?

The charities? Take an example to the new Dutch King: at the start of his Reign he dropped almost all charities. Explanation: "the King wants to be a King for ALL people". Only a handful institutions established by or connected to the Crown kept him as a Patron, like the Royal Academy of Sciences, the War Graves Foundation, the Praemium Erasmanianum. But no longer the Gouda Cheese Association, the North Sea Seal Rescue Centres, the Friesian traditional costumes conservation, etc.

This would mean the British King or Queen or senior British royals opening the new multi-billion pound High Speed Line to the North, baptizing a new submarine for the British nuclear component, opening a new university medical centre: these are not everyday occurrences.

Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland are more or less comparable with the UK in population and fare excellently well with only a president + consort (or only a King and Queen). It brings up the fair question how sustainable it is to have a daughter, or a cousin or a granddaughter of the head of state to go to Lodge Coaches in Chelmsford, to the Scouts Camp in Roxwell, to Railworld in Peterborough, to Corgi Hosiery in Dyfed, to Shed Company in Colchester, etc. Lovely visits undoubtedly, by the extended royal family. But even on THIS board it will barely receive attention, let alone in mainstream media. And it pops up the question: how do the French, Spaniards, Germans, Italians, Polish survive, their local events being starved from royal visitors ?

This is a fair question and I do have no doubt that the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge have their thoughts about it as well. If the rumours about a slimline royal family are true, then we know that this fundamental question I popped up above, was and is into their considerations.

 

[Claire]

You have hit the nail on the head there - I can only pray the palace has someone like you given them advice.

 

[Betsypaige]

Absolutely. Dull is good. Dutifulness is even better.

At the end of her memoirs Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester (I'm paraphrasing here) said something along the lines of how she felt grateful to all the people who had come out to greet her over the years. She made the telling point that this was not because of her as an individual but because of what she represented.

I haven't read the book for along time & no longer have a copy. If anyone on here does maybe they'd like to check I've not just made all that up I'm pretty sure I haven't

I would also add that being the monarch will tend - if he or she is doing it right- to make that person appear dull. The monarch is not supposed to have any - or at least not to offer up any - opinions, for example. Yet, the Queen is known personally to have a sparkling wit and is a fine pantomime. ....