The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[A Tudor]

Unless there is a formal statement from the Palace I will not be lead astray by these anonymous sources or royal reporters who think they are psychic. Does anyone else think that there could not be a worse time to announce a so-call Way-Ahead redux? Good heavens, the Duke is barely cold in the grave and the media are stirring the pot. Contrary to the breathless reporting, HM the Queen is not yet lying beside her husband and it is and obscenity to treat her as if she does not even exist, that she has no say in what will be happening in her own home and family.

Although one can argue it's distasteful, this kind of ''behaviour'' is quite common when a reign is closer to its end. It has happened many times before. Considering how long HM has reigned, I'm sure the ''palace'' has to be prepared for all kinds of situations and decisions.


If I were Charles, tbh, I would prefer the most controversial decisions to be made while HM is on the throne. Her popularity is huge, so she can weather the controversies better than him. When he is King, I'm not so sure he'll be able to count with the good will of the people as much.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Japan is a very different case. The insistence on male rulers only, the loss of princesses when they marry, the power of the Imperial Household Agency, all make comparisons with the European monarchies fairly meaningless.

I am not seeing the connection between the insistence on male rulers, etc. and the number of working royals who are required; could you explain?

Comparisons with republics are interesting but again not really relevant, unless you're making the case for abolishing the monarchy and installing a republic in its place. Then you have to decide which, if any, of the various forms of government/Head of State you want to have.

Naturally there are differences between monarchies and republics as a class, but the argument was about population size and that is an issue that both monarchies and republics must take into account.

And, no, as we say periodically, there has never been an official statement that he wants to slim down the monarchy.

Re Charles and slimming down, it is regularly stated in newspapers and on royal forums that Charles wants to slim down the monarchy. I'm just saying that there is absolutely no evidence that this is true.

I was responding to your comment "there has never been an official statement that he wants to slim down the monarchy": I don't think any newspapers or royal forums are asserting that the Prince of Wales has made an official statement of that kind. It is clear that you believe without an official statement there is no evidence of his wishes, but that is not what newspapers or other forum members are claiming.


ETA: I will respond to Mbruno's post regarding titles of queens consort in the threads for the respective monarchies.

 

[Mbruno]

Naturally there are differences between monarchies and republics as a class, but the argument was about population size and that is an issue that both monarchies and republics must take into account.

I think the main difference is that President of the Republic doesn't normally take up the kind of patronages that Royal Families do and is not involved with the same broad spectrum of social organizations, at least not in the republics that have an executive president.


Sometimes the First Lady does some of the social and philanthropic work that royals do, but, again, not on the same scale, I think. The President himself concentrates more on his state and constitutional role, which, in some countries, actually includes running the government, being the head of the Armed Forces and directing foreign policy.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Re Charles and slimming down, it is regularly stated in newspapers and on royal forums that Charles wants to slim down the monarchy. I'm just saying that there is absolutely no evidence that this is true.

There have been no official announcements about the possibility of slimming down the monarchy but I think Harry and Meghan pretty much confirmed it is being discussed when they complained that Archie and his sister may not be HRHs.

 

[A Tudor]

Given that Head of the Commonwealth is merely a symbolic or ceremonial position, it makes sense, for historical reasons, that he or she should be the same person who occupies the British throne since a present or former connection to the British Crown is what (most) Commonwealth countries have in common and what brought them together in the first place.

I agree with that, but considering they have to VOTE to select a new Head of the Commonwealth it means one day the title can go to whoever they want. To settle this, imo, they should could officially declare the title as honorary (pretty much like the King of Spain in the Ibero- American forum) and also remove the ''voting'' part, establishing that every English monarch is automatically honorary Head of the Commonwealth.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think the main difference is that President of the Republic doesn't normally take up the kind of patronages that Royal Families do and is not involved with the same broad spectrum of social organizations, at least not in the republics that have an executive president.

Sometimes the First Lady does some of the social and philanthropic work that royals do, but, again, not on the same scale, I think.

That is probably true, but the population normally is not protesting at this state of affairs.

There have been no official announcements about the possibility of slimming down the monarchy but I think Harry and Meghan pretty much confirmed it is being discussed when they complained that Archie and his sister may not be HRHs.

janet14 was referring to slimming down the number of working royals, not the number of HRHs.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

That is probably true, but the population normally is not protesting at this state of affairs.




janet14 was referring to slimming down the number of working royals, not the number of HRHs.

I should have been more clear: In my mind, reducing the number of HRHs naturally leads to fewer working royals.

 

[RandyDrx]

Believe me, I know how unpopular Charles is, sigh (sorry, it frustrates me).

You’re probably right, and that’s fine. I just resent the idea that what is really a personal feud between brothers (H and C as well, but that’s not sexy) could ever bring down the monarchy. This is the kind of thing people will lap up, and it’s the furthest thing from the truth. You spoke the truths, and Anna should know that.

I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "not sexy"?

 

[Betsypaige]

I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "not sexy"?

Meaning, all we hear about is W and H, H and W, even at/around the funeral. Harry's relationship with Charles is at least as important, but the media kept focusing on the brothers.

In this case, there's a rift between the brothers......but that's what it is, a rift. It's not comparable in the slightest to the Abdication crisis, yet both Lacey and now Anna P. have written books portending DOOM DOOM DOOM for the monarchy if William and Harry don't repair their rift. W and H sell, that's what I mean by "sexy".

 

[RandyDrx]

Meaning, all we hear about is W and H, H and W, even at/around the funeral. Harry's relationship with Charles is at least as important, but the media kept focusing on the brothers.

In this case, there's a rift between the brothers......but that's what it is, a rift. It's not comparable in the slightest to the Abdication crisis, yet both Lacey and now Anna P. have written books portending DOOM DOOM DOOM for the monarchy if William and Harry don't repair their rift. W and H sell, that's what I mean by "sexy".

Ah, I see.

 

[Fijiro]

Given that Head of the Commonwealth is merely a symbolic or ceremonial position, it makes sense, for historical reasons, that he or she should be the same person who occupies the British throne since a present or former connection to the British Crown is what (most) Commonwealth countries have in common and what brought them together in the first place.

This ... if one member country is the only country heading the commonwealth FOREVER, and doesn't want it rotated, it is like colonization all over again using "backdoor". Because if there is no option or a chance for other nations to head it, even if it is only "ceremonial head", then it negates the Commonwealth declaration that stipulates that the relationship between member countries is equal in status.

 

[ACO]

I don't think the monarchy is in danger but I think it is naïve to think it is untouchable. Personally I think the death of the Queen will tells us a lot about where people really stand because I feel a lot of goodwill is due to her. When she is gone... we shall see.

A lot can happen in a decade. Nothing is a guarantee.

 

[Mbruno]

I don't think the monarchy is in danger but I think it is naïve to think it is untouchable. Personally I think the death of the Queen will tells us a lot about where people really stand because I feel a lot of goodwill is due to her. When she is gone... we shall see.

A lot can happen in a decade. Nothing is a guarantee.

I am pretty sure similar arguments were made in the final years of Queen Victoria's reign. And, ironically, republicanism back then might even have been stronger than today.


To be clear, I agree that the transition from Elizabeth to Charles will be a delicate period, but I don't see any existential threat to the monarchy in the UK. In the Commonwealth realms, however, all bets are off. Several former realms became republics in the past and the trend will likely continue in the future.

 

[MsJulie]

The monarchy will have some but not much change under Prince Charles. When Prince William ascends the throne, I believe there will be a big change. The old strong guard will be gone. The people of England, Williams age and younger will not be as interested in royalty. It is MOO and time will tell.

 

[ACO]

I am pretty sure similar arguments were made in the final years of Queen Victoria's reign. And, ironically, republicanism back then might even have been stronger than today.


To be clear, I agree that the transition from Elizabeth to Charles will be a delicate period, but I don't see any existential threat to the monarchy in the UK. In the Commonwealth realms, however, all bets are off. Several former realms became republics in the past and the trend will likely continue in the future.

I mean I feel we are saying the same thing. I don't see the end of the monarchy but I think in 2021 people also view it differently. Frankly as long as the people of the UK want it then it will be fine. But the Commonwealth, as you say, is a completely different conversation.

 

[winifred]

USRoyal Watcher

"I should have been more clear: In my mind, reducing the number of HRHs naturally leads to fewer working royals."

But surely Archie and his sister were never going to be working royals, HRH or not. The pattern set by the Queen was her children (and, barring Tim Lawrence) their spouses, are working royals; the children of her heir, Charles, and their spouses are working royals (William, Kate, Meghan, Harry);but the children of the heir's siblings, Anne, Andrew, Edward, and the heir to the heir's sibling's children (Archie and his sister) are not working royals.

The Queen had to ask her cousins for help, because there were so few royals at the start of her reign, but, unless the numbers fall drastically in the future, the pattern still works, even with the loss of Harry, Meghan and Andrew.

(We don't know of course what will happen with Charlotte and Louis twenty years down the line.)

 

[winifred]

I am not seeing the connection between the insistence on male rulers, etc. and the number of working royals who are required; could you explain? "

Sorry, I'm having problems with quoting. What I mean is that the number of working royals in Japan is dictated by circumstances that have no relevance to the European monarchies, where some still have male primogeniture, but women are not banned from inheriting. In Japan the ban on female rulers means that there are effectively only 2 heirs (the third is 83 and very unlikely to inherit) and the married out princesses aren't allowed to be working royals. So, for a country, as you say, with a larger population that any European monarchy, slimming down isn't a choice, it's an inevitability, unless they change the laws of succession.

"Naturally there are differences between monarchies and republics as a class, but the argument was about population size and that is an issue that both monarchies and republics must take into account."

Constitutional monarchies have, broadly speaking, the same representational roles. Heads of State in Western republics don't.

"I was responding to your comment "there has never been an official statement that he wants to slim down the monarchy": I don't think any newspapers or royal forums are asserting that the Prince of Wales has made an official statement of that kind. It is clear that you believe without an official statement there is no evidence of his wishes, but that is not what newspapers or other forum members are claiming."

I believe he has no plans to slim down the monarchy because I don't think for a moment that he'd say to Anne, Edward, Sophie, the Kents and the Gloucesters, "you've given your lives to supporting the monarchy and serving the country but that's it, I don't want you any more." My post 1225 crunches the numbers.

 

[Somebody]

USRoyal Watcher

"I should have been more clear: In my mind, reducing the number of HRHs naturally leads to fewer working royals."

But surely Archie and his sister were never going to be working royals, HRH or not. The pattern set by the Queen was her children (and, barring Tim Lawrence) their spouses, are working royals; the children of her heir, Charles, and their spouses are working royals (William, Kate, Meghan, Harry);but the children of the heir's siblings, Anne, Andrew, Edward, and the heir to the heir's sibling's children (Archie and his sister) are not working royals.

The Queen had to ask her cousins for help, because there were so few royals at the start of her reign, but, unless the numbers fall drastically in the future, the pattern still works, even with the loss of Harry, Meghan and Andrew.

(We don't know of course what will happen with Charlotte and Louis twenty years down the line.)

From my perspective, it seems that the Royal dukes were always expected to support the monarch but not the others. So, normally after the queen's uncle The Duke of Kent passed away his role was taken over by his eldest son; and the queen's other uncle The Duke of Gloucester was supposed to be followed by his eldest son, whom died young, which is why the current Duke of Gloucester ended up being a working royal.

So, of her cousins the following were expected to work for the firm:
- Prince William of Gloucester (as the future duke of Gloucester)
- The Duke of Kent (Edward; as his father had already passed away)
[Next to of course the Queen and princess Margaret]

Cousins not expected to work for the firm:
- Prince Richard of Gloucester
- Princess Alexandra of Kent
- Prince Michael of Kent
- George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood
- The Hon. Gerald Lascelles

In the end, Richard took over his brother's position when his brother died at the age of 30; and princess Alexandra was asked to also take up royal duties to fulfill a need (she was the only 'extra' that the queen asked to join).

So, if we would translate that to the current situation:
Expected to work for the firm (among the queen's grandchildren):
- The Duke of Cambridge
- The Duke of Sussex
- Viscount Severn (as future Duke of Edinburgh)

And if they would run short in females/needed a 'princess of the blood':
- Princess Beatrice

And among Charles' grandchilderen:
- Prince George of Cambridge
- Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
- Prince Louis of Cambridge
- Archie Mountbatten-Windsor (as future duke of Sussex)
NOT: - girl Mountbatten-Windsor

So, if the 'senior royal' working role is indeed (at least) reduced to the children of the monarch and heir; that means that the limited number of cousins (eldest sons of the royal dukes; themselves (future) royal dukes) are left out. Which in the generation of the queen's grandchildren applies only to James; and in the generation of Charles's grandchildren applies only to Archie.

 

[Mbruno]

From my perspective, it seems that the Royal dukes were always expected to support the monarch but not the others. So, normally after the queen's uncle The Duke of Kent passed away his role was taken over by his eldest son; and the queen's other uncle The Duke of Gloucester was supposed to be followed by his eldest son, whom died young, which is why the current Duke of Gloucester ended up being a working royal.

So, of her cousins the following were expected to work for the firm:
- Prince William of Gloucester (as the future duke of Gloucester)
- The Duke of Kent (Edward; as his father had already passed away)
[Next to of course the Queen and princess Margaret]

Cousins not expected to work for the firm:
- Prince Richard of Gloucester
- Princess Alexandra of Kent
- Prince Michael of Kent
- George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood
- The Hon. Gerald Lascelles

In the end, Richard took over his brother's position when his brother died at the age of 30; and princess Alexandra was asked to also take up royal duties to fulfill a need (she was the only 'extra' that the queen asked to join).

So, if we would translate that to the current situation:
Expected to work for the firm (among the queen's grandchildren):
- The Duke of Cambridge
- The Duke of Sussex
- Viscount Severn (as future Duke of Edinburgh)

And if they would run short in females/needed a 'princess of the blood':
- Princess Beatrice

And among Charles' grandchilderen:
- Prince George of Cambridge
- Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
- Prince Louis of Cambridge
- Archie Mountbatten-Windsor (as future duke of Sussex)
NOT: - girl Mountbatten-Windsor

So, if the 'senior royal' working role is indeed (at least) reduced to the children of the monarch and heir; that means that the limited number of cousins (eldest sons of the royal dukes; themselves (future) royal dukes) are left out. Which in the generation of the queen's grandchildren applies only to James; and in the generation of Charles's grandchildren applies only to Archie.

That sounds right except that Charles "lost" the current and the future Dukes of Sussex (Harry and Archie) as working royals, so he is "two men short" so to speak, which is actually multiplied by two if their respective wives are also factored in. To offset the female deficit, either Beatrice/Eugenie or Louise will have to be drafted. I suppose you picked Beatrice because she is the most senior of the latter in terms of position in the line of succession, but since Andrew has been sidelined , it is more likely that James and Louise will be working royals (taking over from Edward and Sophie) instead of Beatrice and Eugenie.



I also believe that, when Edward becomes DoE, James and Louise will start using their HRH Prince/Princess styles. We will see.

 

[muriel]

That sounds right except that Charles "lost" the current and the future Dukes of Sussex (Harry and Archie) as working royals, so he is "two men short" so to speak, which is actually multiplied by two if their respective wives are also factored in. To offset the female deficit, either Beatrice/Eugenie or Louise will have to be drafted. I suppose you picked Beatrice because she is the most senior of the latter in terms of position in the line of succession, but since Andrew has been sidelined , it is more likely that James and Louise will be working royals (taking over from Edward and Sophie) instead of Beatrice and Eugenie.



I also believe that, when Edward becomes DoE, James and Louise will start using their HRH Prince/Princess styles. We will see.

I am not so sure. I do not think either the York or Wessex children will be included. I think you will see a period of a few years when the BRF are thinly staffed, before the Cambridge children start conducting engagements.

The working family remains HM, C&C, William & Catherine, Anne, Edward and Sophie. HM is already quite restricted in her activities, and Charles, Camilla and Anne will need to soldier on for another 10 -12 years before slowing down materially.

 

[Mbruno]

I am not so sure. I do not think either the York or Wessex children will be included. I think you will see a period of a few years when the BRF are thinly staffed, before the Cambridge children start conducting engagements.

The working family remains HM, C&C, William & Catherine, Anne, Edward and Sophie. HM is already quite restricted in her activities, and Charles, Camilla and Anne will need to soldier on for another 10 -12 years before slowing down materially.

Of course there could be a slimming down. I was just going along with Somebody's criteria to define the working royals (not counting spouses), namely the monarch, the heir, other children of the monarch, other available royal dukes, and an extra princess of the blood if needed.


Charles' reign


Monarch: Charles


Heir: William


Monarch's second son: Harry (excluded)


Other royal dukes: Andrew (excluded), Edward (monarch's brothers)


Extra female Princess of the Blood: Anne (monarch's sister)



William's reign


Monarch: William


Heir: George


Monarch's younger children: Charlotte, Louis (also a possible royal duke)


Other royal dukes: Harry (monarch's brother, excluded); Edward (monarch's uncle) and later James (taking over from Edward; monarch's cousin)


Extra female Princess of the Blood (if needed): a daughter of a former royal duke, e.g. Beatrice, Eugenie or Louise (monarch's cousins)

 

[Alison H]

Without wishing to be morbid, a lot depends on people's health. Thankfully, the Queen is still in good health at 95, as are the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra in their mid-80s, but Princess Margaret passed away at 71 and was in poor health for a while before that.

 

[Mbruno]

Without wishing to be morbid, a lot depends on people's health. Thankfully, the Queen is still in good health at 95, as are the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra in their mid-80s, but Princess Margaret passed away at 71 and was in poor health for a while before that.

THe early years of Charles' reign, without H&M and Andrew, will be the most critical period. The available adult working royals, in addition to Charles/Camilla and Anne (who will be old), will be only William /Catherine and Edward/Sophie.


I don't see either the York girls or James/Louise taking any official role while their parents are alive. William, on the other hand, will have his 3 adult children to support him in his reign plus Edward/Sophie for quite same time, as they are still relatively young. When EDward steps down or passes, James can take over some of his patronages/initiatives such as, obviously, the DoE awards. I don't see William discontinuing that.

 

[Claire]

Is it possible for us to have joint monarchs ie. William and Mary - but Charles and William. How will this work? Will we have two Queens, will they both be on the money?

 

[Mbruno]

Is it possible for us to have joint monarchs ie. William and Mary - but Charles and William. How will this work? Will we have two Queens, will they both be on the money?

I don't get your point. In my previous comment, I considered two separate scenarios:


1) Charles is King and the Queen's generation is gone (or retired), but William's children are not working royals yet.


2) William is King; Charles' generation is either gone or retired (except perhaps Edward and Sophie for a while) and William's children are full working royals (but his grandchildren are not).


I was trying to make a case that, with the exclusion of the York, Sussex, Kent and Gloucester lines, the Edinburgh line may carry on as working royals into the next generation, at least if future monarchs stick with the precedent of having available royal dukes as working members of the Family. Otherwise, what is the point of creating royal dukedoms in the first place?


Going with Somebody's argument, even if Charles or William changed nothing and simply applied current rules to determine the working members of the family, there would be a natural slimming down caused by Charles having only two sons and the York and Sussex families being out of the picture.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

What I mean is that the number of working royals in Japan is dictated by circumstances that have no relevance to the European monarchies, where some still have male primogeniture, but women are not banned from inheriting. In Japan the ban on female rulers means that there are effectively only 2 heirs (the third is 83 and very unlikely to inherit) and the married out princesses aren't allowed to be working royals. So, for a country, as you say, with a larger population that any European monarchy, slimming down isn't a choice, it's an inevitability, unless they change the laws of succession.

Thank you for the clarification.

I think it is a choice. Japan is a country governed by a democratically elected Parliament and the laws of succession and laws of membership of the imperial family are subject to modification by simple legislation (far simpler than the constitutional amendment route which is required to change succession laws in most European monarchies).

If the public felt strongly that the number of working royals should be increased or at least not slimmed down, pressure would be exerted on the government to amend those laws, just as the government was pressured by public opinion into passing legislation to allow the previous emperor to abdicate (something the prime minister opposed).

Constitutional monarchies have, broadly speaking, the same representational roles. Heads of State in Western republics don't.

The question then is who carries out the representational roles in the republics? (If the answer is no one, that would create evidence that the restriction or elimination of these roles is not necessarily unacceptable to members of the public.)

I believe he has no plans to slim down the monarchy because I don't think for a moment that he'd say to Anne, Edward, Sophie, the Kents and the Gloucesters, "you've given your lives to supporting the monarchy and serving the country but that's it, I don't want you any more." My post 1225 crunches the numbers.

Of reporters and royal watchers with knowledge of the British royal family, I don't think there are many who expect King Charles to fully retire his siblings and the Kents and Gloucesters, even if some expect he will reduce their roles in comparison to their current status. Generally speaking, the expectation is that the total exclusion from a working role would only apply to the York princesses (who already have been affected), the Wessex children, and the Sussex children.

[...] at least if future monarchs stick with the precedent of having available royal dukes as working members of the Family. Otherwise, what is the point of creating royal dukedoms in the first place?

Tradition? The practice of appointing men from the monarch's family as dukes traces back to the medieval period, while the current concept of a "working royal" is a much newer one.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

In regards to this quote from Richard Kay, I think things will go differently. "For Charles, as sad as his father's passing undoubtedly has been, the priority now is the reintegration of Harry into royal life."

I don't see Harry ever being reintegrated into "royal life" in any way, shape or form connected to the monarchy or the "Firm" or anything to do with patronages and engagements and duties. He may reestablish familial ties with his father and his brother and some of the family but to the public eye, he'll be just another member of the monarch's "extended family". Maybe invited to Trooping and to the Christmas Lunch at Buckingham Palace and even Sandringham up until Charles passes.

Its possible that by the time William is king, Harry and his family will be regarded much in the same vein as King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother regarded the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. It's possible but then again, fences could be mended by then and they're on cordial terms.

Never though, in a million years, will the Sussexes be having any kind of a "royal life".

I absolutely agree. After what has happened there is no way we will see the Sussexes take on any royal duties; that is different from hopefully sometime down the (long, looong road, Harry (perhaps Meghan too but I’m not holding my breath) can have some sort of relationship with some family members.

I am all for a slimmed down monarchy. But with all the patronages they have, I’m not sure how they will manage it. It makes sense to me to have Charlotte and Louis as working royals should they so choose when they are much older and really understand what that does and doesn’t mean. I don’t think that Andrew, Edward , and Anne thought they should be treated in the Firm the same way as Charles. But I agree that Charlotte and Louis’ s children should not take on these roles. Honestly, part of it boils down to the number of children they have. What if George has one? Then what?

I have read a number of things that made it clear that Diana was keen to treat the two boys equally - that makes perfect sense for a parent and should be true for family relationships. However, I wonder if Harry never really got that that meant he would not be treated the same way in the Firm? A bit more of a challenge since Charles had only two children.

I do think that Harry wasn’t happy in his royal role - several girlfriends wanted no part of that life and he seemed to want a family - so having Meghan in his life gave him the push/courage to get out. The couple’s hubris, though, was thinking they were important enough to call the shots and get what they wanted. Which I still think was to have their cake and eat it too.

Something else I hope they’ll address in this summit which obviously they would not make public: how long should Charles be king? Should he plan on an abdication at a certain age but to give William and Kate more time with their children - that he didn’t have growing up? If he is really as unpopular as polls say, he will also need to be a pragmatist like his father so that the monarchy doesn’t go down the tubes. I cannot see him suggesting that William should be king after HM passes on, but unless he becomes super popular, I can’t see him sustaining the monarchy until his death. So many other monarchs in Europe have stepped aside to retire. I cannot see HM doing this but I hope that Charles will at some point.

What do others think?

 

[Mbruno]

The question then is who carries out the representational roles in the republics? (If the answer is no one, that would create evidence that the restriction or elimination of these roles is not necessarily unacceptable to members of the public.)

I think we are talking about two different levels of representation roles.


First, an institutional representation role that includes e.g. hosting visiting heads of state, accepting foreign diplomatic credentials, or giving out orders, medals and decorations. That kind of role is fulfilled in monarchies by the king/queen (or equivalent), and in republics by the president.


The second level is patronage of national academies, universities, and diffferent arts, science or sports associations; or involvement with charities, NGOs or miscellaneous social or environment groups, including multilateral international bodies. That is something that members of Royal Families (not only the monarch, but also princes/princesses) do quite often. Furthermore, they also have a close connection with military institutions, including veterans. By contrast, presidents normally don't have that kind of role, with maybe a few exceptions.



Whether that role is missed or not depends on the expectations that a given society has. My impression is that, in European countries that are monarchies, the public has grown accostumed to seeing royals involved with miscellaneous patronages, so, if they suddenly and abruptly withdrew from those roles, they would be missed.

I am all for a slimmed down monarchy. But with all the patronages they have, I’m not sure how they will manage it. It makes sense to me to have Charlotte and Louis as working royals should they so choose when they are much older and really understand what that does and doesn’t mean. I don’t think that Andrew, Edward , and Anne thought they should be treated in the Firm the same way as Charles. But I agree that Charlotte and Louis’ s children should not take on these roles. Honestly, part of it boils down to the number of children they have. What if George has one? Then what?

I have read a number of things that made it clear that Diana was keen to treat the two boys equally - that makes perfect sense for a parent and should be true for family relationships. However, I wonder if Harry never really got that that meant he would not be treated the same way in the Firm? A bit more of a challenge since Charles had only two children.

The criteria for "working royal" from Edward VII (?) to the present seems to have been primarily:


1) The monarch and his/her spouse.


2) The Queen Dowager, when applicable.


3) The monarch's sons, including the heir (and their respective wives).



4) The eldest living sons of the monarch's sons (and respective wives).



Note that the monarch's daughters were not automatically working royals unless the heir happened to be female (e.g. Princess Elizabeth) and/or the King had no sons and only daughters (e.g. George VI, in which case Princess Margaret for example was also a working royal). Queen Elizabeth II innovated by having Princess Anne as a full-time working royal. Note also that (4) above included for example the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, but excluded Prince Michael. Similarly, it would normally have excluded Princess Alexandra, but Queen Elizabeth II drafted her anyway. It also excludes Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise, but not James.


The exclusion of the female lines from the working Family actually automatically implied a slimming down, which was consistent with princesses not getting peerages and not passing down royal titles. Longer ago, the primary fate of a British princess would have actually been to marry a foreign prince from another royal family (or, more recently, a British peer), rather than serving domestically as a working royal.


The introduction of equal primogeniture, under which male lines are no longer preferred over female ones, might force a revision of the criteria above, but that is not a given. If there is an alternative gender neutral slimming down criterion, the natural option is to keep as working royals:


1) The monarch and his/her spouse.


2) The monarch's living parents.


3) The heir and his/her spouse.


4) The monarch's children other than the heir.


5) The heir's children.


Note that (1)-(5) are the persons who are now entitled to royal styles (Majesty or Royal Highness) for example in Spain. Groups 4 and 5 may be extended with wives of the monarch's sons or of the heir's sons although husbands of daughters are normally not included unless the daughter in question happens to be in direct line to the throne. Group 5 can be, on the other hand, further slimmed down by keeping only the heir's eldest child as a working royal until the heir ascends the throne.


Any additional slimming down, e.g. exckuding all of the monarch's children other than the heir, would be too extreme IMHO for a country of the size of the United Kingdom.

 

[Somebody]

I think we are talking about two different levels of representation roles.


First, an institutional representation role that includes e.g. hosting visiting heads of state, accepting foreign diplomatic credentials, or giving out orders, medals and decorations. That kind of role is fulfilled in monarchies by the king/queen (or equivalent), and in republics by the president.


The second level is patronage of national academies, universities, and diffferent arts, science or sports associations; or involvement with charities, NGOs or miscellaneous social or environment groups, including multilateral international bodies. That is something that members of Royal Families (not only the monarch, but also princes/princesses) do quite often. Furthermore, they also have a close connection with military institutions, including veterans. By contrast, presidents normally don't have that kind of role, with maybe a few exceptions.

Whether that role is missed or not depends on the expectations that a given society has. My impression is that, in European countries that are monarchies, the public has grown accostumed to seeing royals involved with miscellaneous patronages, so, if they suddenly and abruptly withdrew from those roles, they would be missed.

And wouldn't that secondary role not also be one of the benefits of having a royal family over an elected temporary head of state?

If the monarchy is fully functioning as a republic, there is less reason to sustain the monarchy.

 

[Betsypaige]

Is it possible for us to have joint monarchs ie. William and Mary - but Charles and William. How will this work? Will we have two Queens, will they both be on the money?

No, and why? There is no way to say this without being awkward, but Charles has “earned” his right to be King. William will be a terrific one, but he has to wait. Again, I ask why.