The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Durham]

But another big scandal like Andrew, could IMO push things to the point where there IS a strong more active republican movement...This last year we've had Andrew behaving disgracefully and having to be sidelined and Harry voluntarily walking out... Charles isn't as well liked as the queen, so if anything happened in a few years time it might be the end.

Which is why it might be best if the monarch's relatives were private untitled citizens. The monarch's family will always have the potential to be an embarrassment but any scandal/criticism would be less damaging to the institution if there was a clear separation between the public & domestic life of the sovereign.

The Prince of Wales (private life aside) is not as popular as he could be because of perceived political meddling & extravagance. As an aside I don't understand why the British heir to the throne needs to have such a large income. Others heirs don't.

 

[Durham]

Complicating factor in the UK is Brexit on an already Covid-strained society. Will it have centrifugal powers to see Northern-Ireland and Scotland go? And what will be the effect of severe economic and society turmoil as well the breaking of the Union, on the general respect and approval for the institutions of state?

There is less support for the monarchy in Scotland than England. The end of the union might see a republic in Scotland & strengthened monarchical sentiment in England. Just a wild guess. Probably wrong.

 

[Durham]

What strikes me the most is that, even today, we hear British "royal experts" claiming that the British monarch is "different" from other European monarchs because he/she is "annointed" in a coronation ceremony of a religious nature. As if the monarch's constitutional authority proceeded from the Church and/or the coronation ceremony, when, in reality, it is derived solely from British law, which the British Parliament by the way can change at will (including the line of succession to the throne).

The British monarchy IMHO cannot truly modernize unless it drops this fiction of divine rule by the sovereign, which, again, is at odds with the constitutional reality of the United Kingdom itself. Replacing the coronation with a secular enthronement ceremony and disestablishing the Church of England are necessary steps to finally bring the British monarchy into the 21st century.

Well strictly speaking the British monarch is different because they are anointed. Of course at one time they weren't unique in this. If British monarchs are to abdicate in the future then the coronation service has to go. Otherwise it would make no sense.

Monarchs can still have a civil ceremony in addition to a coronation if people want it.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The British monarchy IMHO cannot truly modernize unless it drops this fiction of divine rule by the sovereign, which, again, is at odds with the constitutional reality of the United Kingdom itself. Replacing the coronation with a secular enthronement ceremony and disestablishing the Church of England are necessary steps to finally bring the British monarchy into the 21st century.

I think the fact that British politicians deliberately decided in 2013 to continue using the antiquated term "papist" in royal succession legislation is more at odds with 21st-century Britain than a religious enthronement ceremony or even a state church.

 

[Durham]

I think the fact that British politicians deliberately decided in 2013 to continue using the antiquated term "papist" in royal succession legislation is more at odds with 21st-century Britain than a religious enthronement ceremony or even a state church.

The existence of the House of Lords is an even more egregious issue.

 

[victor1319]

Which is why it might be best if the monarch's relatives were private untitled citizens. The monarch's family will always have the potential to be an embarrassment

So, you mean, a born English Prince/ss should have less titles, than the youngest of many children of the German Baron of Backwater-Town, which is a Baron/ess too?

Why? They are spare-Monarchs, they must have at least something from their birth - since they are not allowed to have any real career! I mean, look at all the fuss about Citizen just Harry...

And, yes, the English Royals deserve a lot of monies - even if it is just for: that their family handed over the power and the larger part of the Royal Wealth to the Parliament without civil wars and mass slaughters.

 

[Denville]

So, you mean, a born English Prince/ss should have less titles, than the youngest of many children of the German Baron of Backwater-Town, which is a Baron/ess too?

Why? They are spare-Monarchs, they must have at least something from their birth - since they are not allowed to have any real career! I mean, look at all the fuss about Citizen just Harry...

And, yes, the English Royals deserve a lot of monies - even if it is just for: that their family handed over the power and the larger part of the Royal Wealth to the Parliament without civil wars and mass slaughters.

No Civil War???????

 

[victor1319]

No Civil War???????

oh, C'mon! I know, there where civil wars in England, but nothing like the French Revolution, the Russian Red Terror and so on. Perhaps Cromwell - but imho this affair did not lead to a shift in the role of Monarchy.

The English Crown is a bit like the Holy See: The smaller the worldly influence, the safer the institution...

 

[Denville]

oh, C'mon! I know, there where civil wars in England, but nothing like the French Revolution, the Russian Red Terror and so on. Perhaps Cromwell - but imho this affair did not lead to a shift in the role of Monarchy.

The English Crown is a bit like the Holy See: The smaller the worldly influence, the safer the institution...

yes it did. It entailed the execution of the King.....

 

[Curryong]

Not to mention King Charles I being put on trial beforehand, and the Civil War period ultimately establishing the primacy of Parliament above the monarch.

 

[Durham]

Far more people died in Britain & Ireland as a proportion of the population than in both world wars combined - at least a third of a million across the isles in the 1640's. Probably a lot more.

It was a major loss of life. It must have been a terrible time to live through.

 

[Durham]

So, you mean, a born English Prince/ss should have less titles, than the youngest of many children of the German Baron of Backwater-Town, which is a Baron/ess too?

Why? They are spare-Monarchs, they must have at least something from their birth - since they are not allowed to have any real career! I mean, look at all the fuss about Citizen just Harry...

And, yes, the English Royals deserve a lot of monies - even if it is just for: that their family handed over the power and the larger part of the Royal Wealth to the Parliament without civil wars and mass slaughters.

Well they're the children of the Duke of Lancaster so they would have those courtesy titles I suppose. So not entirely untitled, just not royal ones.

 

[ACO]

So, you mean, a born English Prince/ss should have less titles, than the youngest of many children of the German Baron of Backwater-Town, which is a Baron/ess too?

Why? They are spare-Monarchs, they must have at least something from their birth - since they are not allowed to have any real career! I mean, look at all the fuss about Citizen just Harry...

And, yes, the English Royals deserve a lot of monies - even if it is just for: that their family handed over the power and the larger part of the Royal Wealth to the Parliament without civil wars and mass slaughters.

Why do they deserve a lot of monies? These people have their own wealth and still taking from the public. It’s actually pretty ridiculous when you think of it.

 

[AC21091968]

The existence of the House of Lords is an even more egregious issue.

Nigel Farage, leader of Brexit party (Right-wing politician), who is a monarchist, wants to abolish the House of Lords. It's not just the Socialists/Marxists who want to abolish it. More recently, the movement (to abolish House of Lords) is coming from right-wing Brexiteers. Again, you wouldn't really call them republicans/anti-monarchists.

I see a lot more sense to "abolish" House of Lords than to abolish the monarchy. Currently, the House of Lords continues to reject bills from the the House of Commons (currently in Conservative majority). Which is very quite ironic if you compare this situation to those in the 1910s.

Personally, I'm still confused on what to do on House of Lords. In Australia, we have elected Senate (upper house).

 

[Durham]

Yes I agree about it making more sense to abolish the lords than the monarchy. The lords is not necessarily a left/right issue. Plenty of conservatives recognise the absurdity of a nominated unelected second chamber. Even it is a revising one.

Maybe an elected house representing the nations & regions of the UK? Might be a way to keep the union together.

 

[Blog Real]

Nigel Farage, leader of Brexit party (Right-wing politician), who is a monarchist, wants to abolish the House of Lords. It's not just the Socialists/Marxists who want to abolish it. More recently, the movement (to abolish House of Lords) is coming from right-wing Brexiteers. Again, you wouldn't really call them republicans/anti-monarchists.

I see a lot more sense to "abolish" House of Lords than to abolish the monarchy. Currently, the House of Lords continues to reject bills from the the House of Commons (currently in Conservative majority). Which is very quite ironic if you compare this situation to those in the 1910s.

Personally, I'm still confused on what to do on House of Lords. In Australia, we have elected Senate (upper house).

But why abolish the House of Lords?

 

[Alison H]

The House of Lords is unelected. It can't stop legislation from being passed, but it can delay it for up for two years. I personally find that objectionable. I would never, ever call for abolishing the monarchy, but I would agree with abolishing the Lords. Not to mention the fact that they get an allowance just for turning up, money which could be far better spent on other things.


The nations and regions idea's definitely a good one. The virus crisis has really brought regional tensions to the fore.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So, you mean, a born English Prince/ss should have less titles, than the youngest of many children of the German Baron of Backwater-Town, which is a Baron/ess too?

While I think further limitation of prince/ss titles would be a reasonable step for the British monarchy, you do have a point. It puzzles me that many people are concerned about the number of royal princes/ses in Britain, Sweden, or even Belgium (which is already flooded with thousands of princes/ses in its nobility), whereas almost no royal watchers take objection to the hundreds of princes/ses of Liechtenstein or Jordan, or even the hundreds of members of the Habsburg-Lothringen family who use abolished royal titles.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I don't agree that there is no correlation. While it is important to treat them as two distinct issues, under a more popular monarch a country is less likely to become a republic (which is why for example many people think that Australia is more likely to become a republic under Charles than under Elizabeth - as the general tendency is against remaining a republic but the queen's good will counteracts that somewhat), while a really unpopular monarch might speed up the process of becoming a republic.

The approval for a monarchy was higher under the "unpopular" Beatrix than under the "popular" Willem-Alexander. The general desire for a monarchy has never been lower in the Netherlands. Under < 40 years it is close to the tipping point of scoring below 50%. That is a significant change in a quite orangist country.

This proves that the correlation is not absolute. I am sure Queen Victoria of Sweden will be very popular. But when the average Swede in Stockholm is asked if he/she would like to choose his/her own head of state, we will see that the support for a Hereditary monarchy does not correspond with the personal approval of Victoria.

The same counts to William. Once Prince Andrew and Prince Harry were amongst most liked members, their popularity has gone. It tells that Beatrix' aversion in being "popular" was right.

 

[Mbruno]

The House of Lords is unelected. It can't stop legislation from being passed, but it can delay it for up for two years. I

The delay is ordinarily one year ( and 30 days only in the case of money bills). Furthermore, the House of Lords rarely uses its veto power and, when it does nowadays, it is generally justified.

 

[Alison H]

The delay is ordinarily one year ( and 30 days only in the case of money bills). Furthermore, the House of Lords rarely uses its veto power and, when it does nowadays, it is generally justified.

How do you define justified, though? If it was passed by the elected House of Commons, how can an unelected body delaying it be justified? And one person's definition of "justified" is always going to be different from another's.

I wish they'd just abolished it in 1911, but that would have caused an uproar!

 

[AC21091968]

How do you define justified, though? If it was passed by the elected House of Commons, how can an unelected body delaying it be justified? And one person's definition of "justified" is always going to be different from another's.

I wish they'd just abolished it in 1911, but that would have caused an uproar!

Speaking of abolishing the upper house/chamber, New Zealand abolished Legislative Council (upper house) in 1951. The Legislative Council Abolition Bill became an Act on 1950 and came in effect on 1st January 1951. The National Party leader, Sidney Holland introduced the Bill on August 1947 in order to abolish the Legislative Council. I don't think there is a referendum for it.

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/legislative-council-abolished
Legislative Council Abolition Act 1950 No 3 (as at 19 August 1950), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation

Today New Zealand only has House of Representative, in other words unicameralism (The practice of single legislative or parliamentary chamber in government)

P.s. I did not know about the abolishment of Legislative Council until recently.

We could probably discuss about the House of Lords in the British Nobility thread

 

[Durham]

So, you mean, a born English Prince/ss should have less titles, than the youngest of many children of the German Baron of Backwater-Town, which is a Baron/ess too?

Why? They are spare-Monarchs, they must have at least something from their birth - since they are not allowed to have any real career! I mean, look at all the fuss about Citizen just Harry...

From the Encyclopeadia Britannica:


"Not until the accession of the German George I (1714), however, did it become settled practice for all the sovereign’s descendants in the male line (that is, his children and the children of his sons) to be styled prince or princess and royal highness; great-grandchildren in the male line were prince or princess and highness. Before that, in both England and Scotland, the children of the monarchs were styled as Lord Forename or Lady Forename."

Why not return to this earlier, more British practise?

 

[Blog Real]

From the Encyclopeadia Britannica:


"Not until the accession of the German George I (1714), however, did it become settled practice for all the sovereign’s descendants in the male line (that is, his children and the children of his sons) to be styled prince or princess and royal highness; great-grandchildren in the male line were prince or princess and highness. Before that, in both England and Scotland, the children of the monarchs were styled as Lord Forename or Lady Forename."

Why not return to this earlier, more British practise?

I think that would be a setback. The monarch's sons must continue to have the title of Prince and Princess.

 

[Durham]

I wonder how younger children would have continued to be addressed if the line of Queen Anne had continued.

Convention only changed because of the Hanoverian succession. The traditional native custom may well have survived to the present.

 

[Mbruno]

From the Encyclopeadia Britannica:


"Not until the accession of the German George I (1714), however, did it become settled practice for all the sovereign’s descendants in the male line (that is, his children and the children of his sons) to be styled prince or princess and royal highness; great-grandchildren in the male line were prince or princess and highness. Before that, in both England and Scotland, the children of the monarchs were styled as Lord Forename or Lady Forename."

Why not return to this earlier, more British practise?

It was not an exclusively British practice. Sons of the French King (Fils de France) did not routinely use the title of Prince prefixed to their names either. They were referred instead by their peerages.

 

[Durham]

If Britannica is correct it says that there was the use of lord/lady forename.

Was this also the practise in France?

 

[Denville]

If Britannica is correct it says that there was the use of lord/lady forename.

Was this also the practise in France?

I think that the titles Monsieur or Madame were used, but alos the peerages held by sons of the King.. Anyway, what does it matter waht they did in France?

 

[Durham]

I think that the titles Monsieur or Madame were used, but alos the peerages held by sons of the King.. Anyway, what does it matter waht they did in France?

In the spirit of Anglo-French friendly rivalry:

What does anything they do in France matter?

 

[Denville]

I think that would be a setback. The monarch's sons must continue to have the title of Prince and Princess.

i take it you mean the monarch's children.. but I don't quite see why. Its a convention but it doesn't have to go on if the British public or RF dont want to keep it going