The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #781  
Old 06-30-2020, 03:35 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 793
I'm wondering whether the links between the so called CANZUK nations, symbolised by the crown, might become increasingly more important on a political level as the century goes on. All four nations are (the UK by recent choice of course) overshadowed by larger nearby blocs.

Relations between the four may become more important in the real world & not just based on some sentimental attachment & shared history.

As a common (although legally distinct) institution the crown might take on a new lease of life.

Just a thought. Not too political for the RF's I hope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANZUK
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #782  
Old 06-30-2020, 04:55 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I'm wondering whether the links between the so called CANZUK nations, symbolised by the crown, might become increasingly more important on a political level as the century goes on. All four nations are (the UK by recent choice of course) overshadowed by larger nearby blocs.

Relations between the four may become more important in the real world & not just based on some sentimental attachment & shared history.

As a common (although legally distinct) institution the crown might take on a new lease of life.

Just a thought. Not too political for the RF's I hope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANZUK

It would be great if posters from Canada, Australia and New Zealand could give their perspective on the topic. If you allow me, however, I would like to comment briefly on the situation in North America in particular.

According to the Wikipedia, the United States accounted in 2018 for 76.2 % of Canadian exports and 52.2 % of its imports. Geography and the relative size of the economies of the two countries make it virtually impossible for Canada not to have an economy that is closely integrated to the US, especially in some manufacturing sectors like motor vehicles and auto parts where Canadian industry consists mostly of cross-border American transplants, sometimes in neighboring cities on the two sides of the border.

Nevertheless, my humble impression is that Canada and the US always had a somewhat difficult relationship, which was actually openly hostile before the American Civil War (when the possible annexation of parts of British North America by the US was still a real threat) and turned friendly, but never "warm" later. English Canada was originally settled by the American loyalists following the War of Independence in the 13 colonies and Canada clung to the Crown and, later, to the Empire not least because it saw it as a defense against US expansionism and a way to reaffirm a distinct identity from the Americans.

For the French Canadians, on the other hand, it was a matter of national survival: despite Quebec's recent flirtation with separatism over the past 50 years, the historic truth is that the Crown, starting with the Quebec Act of 1774 (denounced BTW by Jefferson in the US Declaration of Independence) and, then, much later, the BNA Act of 1867, which created the Confederation, offered the French Canadians a reasonable compromise, which enabled them to survive as a minority preserving their distinct language, culture and civil law in a much bigger Anglophone North America. Needless to say, under the United States, that would have been impossible as they would have been inevitably "assimilated" as other minorities were in the territories that the US gained from France, Spain and Mexico.

Nowadays, I don't think the Crown has the same importance in the collective national mindset and most Canadians are probably at best indifferent to it. However, Canada has been able (in my opinion successfully) to turn the Crown and the Queen into national Canadian institutions with characteristics that differ from those in the UK. We see it for example in the Canadian system of national honors, which replaced most of the old imperial orders (except for the Order of Merit and the Royal Victorian Order_ the latter only at grades of Commander or below), and in the role that the Governor General, as the Crown's representative, came to assume in the administration of that system (which is still established incidentally by LPs issued by the Queen).

Overall, I see the monarchy lasting longer in Canada than in Australia for example, not only because it is constitutionally difficult to abolish it (it requires the consent of the federal Parliament and of all 10 provinces), but because there is no good reason to do it and no alternative system to put in place which all regions of the country and all ethnic groups within the country can agree on. Unsurprisingly, unlike in Australia or New Zealand, there is no major Canadian political party calling for a republic now. Whether that will change when Queen Elizabeth II passes away, it remains to be seen.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #783  
Old 06-30-2020, 11:58 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
It would be great if posters from Canada, Australia and New Zealand could give their perspective on the topic.
I second this!

Especially since I think, that the "Monarchy over and behind the Oceans" is a very difficult subject for the British Royal Family: On one hand there are these cultural roots, which are embodied by the Royals. On the other hand might an insistance on these cultural roots be seen as "euro-centric", yeah, perhaps even outright racist... - and because of this the British Royal Family has little other choice, than to chose an "common wealthish", "multicultural" angle in the relatioship to these countries.

So the left hand hinders the right hand here and the other way around!
Reply With Quote
  #784  
Old 08-07-2020, 06:46 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
what roles? Its more than likely that they (Charlotte and Louis) will not be full time royals by the time William is king. Things wil have changed to the point where younger children only do a litlte royal work...

I wouldn't go that far. While I expect that some slimming down will take place, I still believe Charlotte and Louis will be full-time royals.


William and Catherine, plus George, Charlotte, Louis and respective spouses is the minimum size of a working RF in a country like the UK with a heavy royal workload. I don't see the Firm going lower than that.


It will be interesting to see though if Charlotte's husband will also do royal work breaking with the tradition of royal wives being full-time working royals, but royal husbands having private careers.
Reply With Quote
  #785  
Old 08-07-2020, 07:09 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
William and Catherine, plus George, Charlotte, Louis and respective spouses is the minimum size of a working RF in a country like the UK with a heavy royal workload.
No it isn't. The workload is elastic to fit the number of paid members. It's as heavy as they want to make it and can be reduced a great deal to fit a smaller working family. The core, essential work can be covered by the monarch & heir so there's absolutely no need for Charlotte or Louis to become working royals.
Reply With Quote
  #786  
Old 08-07-2020, 07:19 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,576
As points of comparison: Spain, with a population approximately three-quarters that of the United Kingdom, is currently able to make do with two working royals. Japan, with a population double that of the United Kingdom, may very well have to do the same some decades from now, and there is little anxiety among the Japanese public concerning that possibility.
Reply With Quote
  #787  
Old 08-07-2020, 07:22 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
No it isn't. The workload is elastic to fit the number of paid members. It's as heavy as they want to make it and can be reduced a great deal to fit a smaller working family. The core, essential work can be covered by the monarch & heir so there's absolutely no need for Charlotte or Louis to become working royals.
I think taht the trend is to have less and less working royals and it will go that way by the time Will is King. At the moment things are in transition, but in due course the older relatives will retire and wont be replaced. Harry and meg have gone, and I think the fact of their going HAS turned attention to the set up iwht younger sons. what if they want a career of their own or resent the restrictions or just aren't that devoted to their older sibling and willing to take second place to him or her?
Reply With Quote
  #788  
Old 08-07-2020, 07:24 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
As points of comparison: Spain, with a population approximately three-quarters that of the United Kingdom, is currently able to make do with two working royals. Japan, with a population double that of the United Kingdom, may very well have to do the same some decades from now, and there is little anxiety among the Japanese public concerning that possibility.
The number of patronages that the Spanish and Japanese Royal Family hold, and the expectation that they are seen out and about opening hospitals etc is significantly less than for the British Royal Family. Despite a desire to reduce working members of the Family it is my view that at least 10 active members are necessary to ensure they remain active and relevant around the country.
Reply With Quote
  #789  
Old 08-07-2020, 07:27 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
The number of patronages that the Spanish and Japanese Royal Family hold, and the expectation that they are seen out and about opening hospitals etc is significantly less than for the British Royal Family. Despite a desire to reduce working members of the Family it is my view that at least 10 active members are necessary to ensure they remain active and relevant around the country.
I think in the end cost will win out. People in the UK may still "expect" to see some royals opening hospitals but I think that that sort of interest in royals has been diminishing for years now. For many, it seems like "make work" to give the Royals visibility and to make it look like they are doing something.
Reply With Quote
  #790  
Old 08-07-2020, 07:37 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 48
Cost undoubtedly will come into it somewhere along the line, as well as removing the risk of young, minor Royals bringing disrepute upon the institution but I am always struck by the positive impression on those that attend a Royal event, or meet a Royal in a presentation line - its something akin to being star-struck, giddiness etc. The magic of Royalty is still felt in UK. I think the Royals and their advisors still agree that the best way to keep the institution popular and relevant is through connection to Charity and Armed Forces and undoubtedly this will continue, and so will need active members to ensure maximum reach.
Reply With Quote
  #791  
Old 08-07-2020, 07:42 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
The number of patronages that the Spanish and Japanese Royal Family hold, and the expectation that they are seen out and about opening hospitals etc is significantly less than for the British Royal Family. Despite a desire to reduce working members of the Family it is my view that at least 10 active members are necessary to ensure they remain active and relevant around the country.



On top of that, the BRF also does Commonwealth tours and other overseas engagements. Even if countries like Australia, New Zealand or Jamaica become republics within the next 30 years, I don't see Commonwealth tours ending entirely.
Reply With Quote
  #792  
Old 08-07-2020, 07:59 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
the expectation that [the Spanish and Japanese royal families] are seen out and about opening hospitals etc is significantly less than for the British Royal Family.
I view it differently, although I would welcome more information. An ordinary hospital visit from a British royal such as the Earl of Wessex appears to me to attract few viewers even from dedicated royalty watchers, much less the general public.

It is arguable that public visibility is even more crucial to the Spanish and Japanese royal families than the British, given that they lack the stable public support (Spain) or political role (Japan) that the British royal family holds.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
The number of patronages that the Spanish and Japanese Royal Family hold [...] is significantly less than for the British Royal Family.
The question, however, is whether the British monarchy needs to maintain a significantly higher number of patronages than the Spanish and Japanese royal families.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
On top of that, the BRF also does Commonwealth tours and other overseas engagements.
The Spanish and Japanese royal families also do tours and overseas engagements and have countries with which they maintain historical ties.
Reply With Quote
  #793  
Old 08-07-2020, 08:08 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 48
If we count things in terms of views or hits on Social Media this may be true. However the mere fact of having a member of the Royal Family out and about, meeting and greeting even a small number of people is enormously important in maintaining the relevance and popularity of the institution. Even in the past there must have been many, many humdrum royal visits that attracted few members of the public by Royals such as Princess Margaret, Princess Alexandra or the Gloucesters. These visits still kept the institution visible which is what maintains the popularity. I think it was Queen Mary that began this strategy in the years after WW1, and I think it remains a sensible approach today.
Reply With Quote
  #794  
Old 08-07-2020, 08:18 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
If we count things in terms of views or hits on Social Media this may be true. However the mere fact of having a member of the Royal Family out and about, meeting and greeting even a small number of people is enormously important in maintaining the relevance and popularity of the institution. Even in the past there must have been many, many humdrum royal visits that attracted few members of the public by Royals such as Princess Margaret, Princess Alexandra or the Gloucesters. These visits still kept the institution visible which is what maintains the popularity. I think it was Queen Mary that began this strategy in the years after WW1, and I think it remains a sensible approach today.
It certainly sounds sensible to me, but if it holds true for Britain then one would expect it to hold true for monarchies which are institutionally and culturally comparable. But the other European kingdoms have all elected to downsize their numbers of working royals, and they and their advisers must have considered the effects of fewer visits and concluded that the positives are more significant than the negatives.
Reply With Quote
  #795  
Old 08-07-2020, 08:54 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
It will be interesting to see though if Charlotte's husband will also do royal work breaking with the tradition of royal wives being full-time working royals, but royal husbands having private careers.
Indeed, or to see if they break tradition in the other direction and allow royal wives to have private careers.

There is a YouGov poll from 2018 in which 49% of the respondents stated that royal wives ought to continue on with their private careers, compared to 24% stating that they should not.

Although, seeing as the Netherlands is alone of the kingdoms of Europe in having broken tradition in this manner as of today, perhaps it is improbable in the short term.
Reply With Quote
  #796  
Old 08-07-2020, 09:45 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Indeed, or to see if they break tradition in the other direction and allow royal wives to have private careers.

There is a YouGov poll from 2018 in which 49% of the respondents stated that royal wives ought to continue on with their private careers, compared to 24% stating that they should not.

Although, seeing as the Netherlands is alone of the kingdoms of Europe in having broken tradition in this manner as of today, perhaps it is improbable in the short term.
In my view anybody with an HRH should not have private career. As the law stands in UK a wife automatically takes her husband's rank, hence the HRH. An HRH with a private career is a liability for conflict of interest and allegations of benefiting from position. Much better that HRH are entirely dedicated to the Monarchy and paid for by the Sovereign.

With Brexit I would imagine the scope for Royal employment could grow as roving ambassadors. In an era when the UK is looking to rebuild its independence on the world stage a sizeable number of working Royals is surely recommendable. When we take into consideration retirement and reduction in the public duties of the current Queen's children over the coming decade and the demise of her cousins we will find ourselves with the smallest Royal Family we have seen in a century. I think we will be stretched to be able to cover the ground.
Reply With Quote
  #797  
Old 08-07-2020, 11:22 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,451
There is not a Profession nor Career that will stand the test of the throne. It is too rife with complications and accusations of unfair trading.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #798  
Old 08-07-2020, 11:31 AM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 458
Tbh, for me comparing the BRF to the rest of European royal families is a miss, because it's just a different situation. It is now and I think it'll continue to be different, especially in the matter of importance, not only domestic but also international.

I don't think the model of 2 working royals would ever work for the BRF. It doesn't mean the monarchy won't get (quite naturally) slimmed down, but I'd be VERY surprised if all of the Cambridges children won't end up being working royals. There is much ground to cover, there are domestic expectations of the BRF and there's also the way they're being used (not in a negative way) on the international scale that simply doesn't compare to the rest of european monarchies.

If I had to guess, I'd say the safe number of people is somewhere between 5-8, not counting the monarch and their spouse. This will allow them to continue charity work, to introduce the young royals to the work carefully and give them a bit of breathing space, to meet the expectations of people and the government. It's also a safe bet in case of one royal or royal couple isn't that popular or wants to leave, because it'll be opportunity for others to step up and do the job.
Reply With Quote
  #799  
Old 08-07-2020, 12:12 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
In my view anybody with an HRH should not have private career. As the law stands in UK a wife automatically takes her husband's rank, hence the HRH. An HRH with a private career is a liability for conflict of interest and allegations of benefiting from position. Much better that HRH are entirely dedicated to the Monarchy and paid for by the Sovereign.

With Brexit I would imagine the scope for Royal employment could grow as roving ambassadors. In an era when the UK is looking to rebuild its independence on the world stage a sizeable number of working Royals is surely recommendable. When we take into consideration retirement and reduction in the public duties of the current Queen's children over the coming decade and the demise of her cousins we will find ourselves with the smallest Royal Family we have seen in a century. I think we will be stretched to be able to cover the ground.
Honestly don't think it will happen. I think both Charles and William will follow the continental pattern and have about 4 or 5 people working. No way is Ch going to pay for Eugenie and Bea to be "working HRHs" and i don't think teh public would want to see them. There is still a certain fascination in "meeting the queen" etc. but I think its a lot less than it used to be, and the smaller royal weddings of the last years prove that the public doesn't get thrilled by a royal wedding the way they used to...
Reply With Quote
  #800  
Old 08-07-2020, 03:15 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fem View Post
Tbh, for me comparing the BRF to the rest of European royal families is a miss, because it's just a different situation. It is now and I think it'll continue to be different, especially in the matter of importance, not only domestic but also international.

[...] There is much ground to cover, there are domestic expectations of the BRF and there's also the way they're being used (not in a negative way) on the international scale that simply doesn't compare to the rest of european monarchies.
Can you explain what you mean in terms of international importance and use? I'm aware that the British royals receive the greatest amount of international publicity, but don't understand how that translates into a higher minimum workload.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius1 View Post
In my view anybody with an HRH should not have private career. As the law stands in UK a wife automatically takes her husband's rank, hence the HRH. An HRH with a private career is a liability for conflict of interest and allegations of benefiting from position. Much better that HRH are entirely dedicated to the Monarchy and paid for by the Sovereign.
That is a very valid concern, and might be dealt with by abstaining from using the theoretical HRH, as with the Wessex children.

ETA: For discreet careers, like those of the York princesses or the Michaels of Kent, it seems that abstaining from using it commercially is considered sufficient.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
There is not a Profession nor Career that will stand the test of the throne. It is too rife with complications and accusations of unfair trading.
I imagine that the discussion of royals pursuing private careers only encompasses those not directly in line to the throne.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1548 Today 09:47 AM
Future of the Belgian monarchy Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 120 05-18-2020 10:03 AM
The Future of the Danish Monarchy Empress Royal House of Denmark 771 04-18-2020 12:48 PM
Future of the Dutch Monarchy Marengo Dutch Royals 39 11-29-2017 09:53 AM




Popular Tags
abdication american history anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones belgian royal family bridal gown canada castles chittagong clarence house coronavirus cover-up danish history dna dubai dutch dutch history dutch royal family edo family tree fantasy movie foundation future genealogy henry v hill house of bourbon house of saxe-coburg and gotha imperial household introduction italian royal family japan jumma kent languages list of rulers lithuanian castles mail maxima memoir monaco history nepal nepalese royal family nobel 2019 northern ireland palaces prince daniel princess chulabhorn princess dita royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding royal wedding gown saudi arabia serbian royal family settings spain spanish history startling new evidence stuart swedish royal family swedish royalty thailand thai royal family tips tracts united kingdom visit from sweden von hofmannsthal


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:36 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×