The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Betsypaige]

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?

You asked, so....Charles should be King until he dies or isn’t capable, just like anyone else. I’m sorry that the public can’t find it’s way to even tolerate him, but it’s not an elective post and Charles is not going to make any kind of change to that end.

There is nothing to address. When HM passes, Charles will become King, with no modifications to his reign.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

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?

Of course I don't know but I can see Charles abdicating at a certain age - 85 or 90, but it would depend on what William wanted. I could then see Charles rededicating himself to the Prince's Trust (whatever the name would be) and supporting William.

 

[Betsypaige]

Of course I don't know but I can see Charles abdicating at a certain age - 85 or 90, but it would depend on what William wanted. I could then see Charles rededicating himself to the Prince's Trust (whatever the name would be) and supporting William.

Why would Charles do that? He has a very strong sense of duty...why should the Queen not do it, but he would ? If he’s strong and capable at 85 or so, good for him and he should keep on being King.


This is just a general comment, but it seems like there’s a lot of wishful thinking...

 

[Curryong]

I’ve got a feeling that Charles, having waited for over 73 years to ascend the throne of GB, will be King until his dying breath, bar severe incapacity, just like his mother.

 

[Mbruno]

I’ve got a feeling that Charles, having waited for over 73rd years to ascend the throne of GB, will be King until his dying breath, bar severe incapacity, just like his mother.

It is surreal to think that Charles may possibly become king close to the age when Beatrix, Albert and Juan Carlos abdicated (after relatively long reigns BTW).

Anyway, abdication is too difficult in the UK and the Commonwealth realms to be a practical option. Besides, I agree Charles wouldn't want it. I think the chances are very slim.

 

[Somebody]

I don't expect Charles to be considering the option of abdication. If the British would decide to start abdicating, my guess would be that it will start with William (and while I hope Charles has a long life ahead of him, I would hope that William will be a bit younger when he takes over; so can still have a decent reign), so George will start his reign for example in his fifties instead of seventies.

 

[EllieCat]

I recall many years ago reading in a few articles/books that Edward VII as Prince of Wales was none too popular and expected to make a poor king, but that the opposite happened and he was well thought of for the 10 or so years that he was monarch. Perhaps it might work this way too for King Charles. Personally, I've always thought he will do a good job, and shouldn't be blamed forever because of his divorce to a popular princess. As far as I can see, besides that marital blip, is that he's always done a thoughtful and good job as Prince of Wales.

 

[Betsypaige]

I recall many years ago reading in a few articles/books that Edward VII as Prince of Wales was none too popular and expected to make a poor king, but that the opposite happened and he was well thought of for the 10 or so years that he was monarch. Perhaps it might work this way too for King Charles. Personally, I've always thought he will do a good job, and shouldn't be blamed forever because of his divorce to a popular princess. As far as I can see, besides that marital blip, is that he's always done a thoughtful and good job as Prince of Wales.

I thought Edward VII was popular as a PoW..........though I admit, I'm not sure that anyone thought he'd be a good king.

My fear is that nothing Charles does, after his mother passes, will ever be good enough. He doesn't need to be personally popular, but it would be nice if he had the support of the British. Unfortunately, I foresee a lot of "we want William"...

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Just so you all know, I am in the States and really like Charles- and Camilla too. I asked because Charles has waited for so long and if he has a long life (which I hope he does!) but doesn’t abdicate, William will be much older as well. I think that Prince Philip and HM more than earned their right to retire (but HM of course didn’t choose to) years and years ago. I would imagine that HM heard all her life from her family about how her uncle David neglected his duty by abdicating so how could she possibly think about retiring? And she pledged her service her whole life no matter how long or short. Charles will be 87 in 15 years, William will be 54; surely if Charles lives to be 97, then William will be 64. So continuing in this vein, these kings will be over 60 before beginning their reign.

I do not mean to sound ageist (I’m over 60 myself) but I am thinking about younger people in the UK. Remember Elizabeth became Queen in her 20’s and has had 70+ years to become beloved by several generations. I am just concerned about our topic: the future of the monarchy.

 

[Betsypaige]

Just so you all know, I am in the States and really like Charles- and Camilla too. I asked because Charles has waited for so long and if he has a long life (which I hope he does!) but doesn’t abdicate, William will be much older as well. I think that Prince Philip and HM more than earned their right to retire (but HM of course didn’t choose to) years and years ago. I would imagine that HM heard all her life from her family about how her uncle David neglected his duty by abdicating so how could she possibly think about retiring? And she pledged her service her whole life no matter how long or short. Charles will be 87 in 15 years, William will be 54; surely if Charles lives to be 97, then William will be 64. So continuing in this vein, these kings will be over 60 before beginning their reign.

I do not mean to sound ageist (I’m over 60 myself) but I am thinking about younger people in the UK. Remember Elizabeth became Queen in her 20’s and has had 70+ years to become beloved by several generations. I am just concerned about our topic: the future of the monarchy.

My god, I can’t even imagine them all at those ages, lol.

You don’t sound ageist at all - I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you did. We’re all concerned (in the general sense) and want the monarchy to continue on.

No offense against young people (all over, not just UK), but they need to get a grip when it comes to older people/the elderly. Their obsession with youth is extremely problematic.

Lastly - without being morbid, we don’t know how long anyone mentioned above will live, so I’m not sure we should think that far ahead.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I do not see Charles abdicating once he is the sovereign. There are plenty of royal duties and activities which will keep him busy.

 

[camelot23ca]

I don’t think Charles will abdicate, and I expect that when he becomes King the coverage of him will change in tone, for the better. It will have nothing to do with him, personally, but rather his new position as the Head of State. It’s not that he won’t be criticized, but the media won’t jump to criticize him as quickly, and the public will by and large become a little more respectful.

Charles won’t have time to make his mark as King in the way that William will, and he won’t be iconic like his mother, but I think he’ll do as much as possible with the relatively short period of time he’s going to have.

 

[Betsypaige]

I don’t think Charles will abdicate, and I expect that when he becomes King the coverage of him will change in tone, for the better. It will have nothing to do with him, personally, but rather his new position as the Head of State. It’s not that he won’t be criticized, but the media won’t jump to criticize him as quickly, and the public will by and large become a little more respectful.

Charles won’t have time to make his mark as King in the way that William will, and he won’t be iconic like his mother, but I think he’ll do as much as possible with the relatively short period of time he’s going to have.

Charles’s legacy will primarily be as PoW, and that’s not a bad thing; he’s free to do so many things as PoW that he couldn’t ever do as King. Actually, he’s got an enormous responsibility now, as patriarch of the family - one of which is taking care of his mother. The first thing he’ll do as King, sadly, will be to bury and honor his mother, and regardless of however long he’s on the throne, the way he comforts a grieving nation will be long remembered.

 

[Alison H]

I think Edward VII divided opinion - the serious, moralising section of the population weren't impressed by a future king who ran around with women and spent a lot of time playing cards (at a time when gambling was illegal), eating way too much and generally living it up, whereas other people thought he was good fun and a good laugh.

 

[Denville]

I think Edward VII divided opinion - the serious, moralising section of the population weren't impressed by a future king who ran around with women and spent a lot of time playing cards (at a time when gambling was illegal), eating way too much and generally living it up, whereas other people thought he was good fun and a good laugh.

True, I think that he did appeal to a lot of ordinary people who while they might not sleep around or carouse themelseves, enjoyed seeing him having a good time and got vicarious pleasure out of his exploits. I think that the more serious Victorians, who valued propriety, did feel that he would not be a good king.. that he was too undutiful, had been involved in too many scandals as POW, and that he had not exactly been a worker bee, albeit, the truth was that Q Vic had made it difficult for him to take up any real occupation...but he proved to be a reasonably good monarch, doing his duty, but still enjoying his pleasures....

 

[Curryong]

I remember reading the memoirs of a Peer years ago, whose coachman commented to him in the 1890s, with reference to the future Edward VII, that ‘God would not allow such a wicked man to come to the Throne’.

Certainly his way of life was regarded with disapproval by many deeply religious and conservative Victorians. However, as King he applied himself to his red boxes, which he had never been allowed to see when his mother was alive and his gifts for diplomacy came to the fore.


I’m not sure though that we can draw too many parallels between the end of Victoria’s reign and the twilight years of Elizabeth II’s. The times and the characters of both sovereigns and their heirs are so very different.

 

[Betsypaige]

It sounds like Edward VII, when PoW, was never given a chance to prove himself capable, which is why I suppose he surprised people. Sometimes people love down to your expectations of them...and up to them.

Referring back to Elliecat’s original point about Edward VII, the British people know that Charles has done many significant, important things as PoW, and has shown a strong devotion to do his duty. Many of them just can’t abide him personally, and so they think he’d be a horrible King.

 

[Claire]

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.

I think that when Charles is crowned - an announcement will be made the William, prince of Wales will be given more power and will function as a joint monarchy in come capacity. Also I expect that an announcement will also be made that Charles will abdicate at a specific date or time.- Say when Charles turns 80.

 

[Denville]

I think that when Charles is crowned - an announcement will be made the William, prince of Wales will be given more power and will function as a joint monarchy in come capacity. Also I expect that an announcement will also be made that Charles will abdicate at a specific date or time.- Say when Charles turns 80.

Why would they do anyting like that? William is not going to be King, Charles is, and he's waited so long, why would he share his role as king wtih his son? And Again Charles has waited a long time to be king and takes his role seriously. Why would he put a time limit on his time as king??

 

[Betsypaige]

Why would they do anyting like that? William is not going to be King, Charles is, and he's waited so long, why would he share his role as king wtih his son? And Again Charles has waited a long time to be king and takes his role seriously. Why would he put a time limit on his time as king??

I agree...there’s no way this happens, there’s no reason for it, at all.

 

[Claire]

Several reasons
1. Charles knows he is unpopular and yes the British are fickle. He know that he is old and out of touch with the young generation of people in the UK and Commonwealth, or that he is seen to be. He also knows that he can never outrun or change the opinion people have of him regarding Diana.
2. I think Charles has always admired the Dutch way of reign changeover. I do to - so you never have to wait for a death to have a coronation. There is a more sympathetic handover and indeed the former king will be there to guide and advise the newer one. It is also a less turbulent handover all round.
3. It is overall better for the survival of the monarchy and its sustainability.
4. it will be seen as progressive and been able to read the pulse of the nation.

 

[Denville]

No i can't imagine why anyone would think it. Probably when William is king he'll abdicate at a certain age but for him too I doubt if he'll have a "co monarchy" with his son.. or announce a time for his abdication. That just isn't something a British monarch is likely to do. Will may decide when he becomes king that he will give up at 80 but he is Not going to announce that and have people talking and speculating about it for all his reign...

 

[Mbruno]

Several reasons
1. Charles knows he is unpopular and yes the British are fickle. He know that he is old and out of touch with the young generation of people in the UK and Commonwealth, or that he is seen to be. He also knows that he can never outrun or change the opinion people have of him regarding Diana.
2. I think Charles has always admired the Dutch way of reign changeover. I do to - so you never have to wait for a death to have a coronation. There is a more sympathetic handover and indeed the former king will be there to guide and advise the newer one. It is also a less turbulent handover all round.
3. It is overall better for the survival of the monarchy and its sustainability.
4. it will be seen as progressive and been able to read the pulse of the nation.

Even assuming that Charles would go along with it, which I doubt, abdication is a very complicated legal process because of the Commonwealth realms. In the best case scenario, it would be as complicated as the enactment of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which took two years. In the worst case scenario, it may be even more complicated as some scholars claim abdication, as opposed to a simple change in the succession rules, would face a higher constitutional hurdle in some realms as it affects the fundamental principle of hereditary transmission of the Crown, but this is not the place to discuss that.


If abdication were made easier, as it is in the Netherlands, then I think it could become more common in the UK in the future (not in the near future though).

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think that when Charles is crowned - an announcement will be made the William, prince of Wales will be given more power and will function as a joint monarchy in come capacity. Also I expect that an announcement will also be made that Charles will abdicate at a specific date or time.- Say when Charles turns 80.

Charles isn't going to abdicate. He may not even be King by the time he turns 80. He was raised to the idea that a monarch is monarch from accession to death.

He will be 80 in 7 years time. William's children will still be at school. Why do you want another heir apparent to be forced to give up any chance of a normal time in their lives like Charles had. William had freedom in his 20s. Both he and Charles recognise how important that time was for him and want the same for George.

 

[Denville]

Several reasons
1. Charles knows he is unpopular and yes the British are fickle. He know that he is old and out of touch with the young generation of people in the UK and Commonwealth, or that he is seen to be. He also knows that he can never outrun or change the opinion people have of him regarding Diana.
2. I think Charles has always admired the Dutch way of reign changeover. I do to - so you never have to wait for a death to have a coronation. There is a more sympathetic handover and indeed the former king will be there to guide and advise the newer one. It is also a less turbulent handover all round.
3. It is overall better for the survival of the monarchy and its sustainability.
4. it will be seen as progressive and been able to read the pulse of the nation.

Chalres is not a "progressive" person... and he wants to be king. He does not care that he's old or feel that he is out of touch.. He probably feels that if he IS seen as out of touch, it is the people who don't like him who are foolish and wrong and he will IMO be determined to have his time as King and to make the most of it.
And he's a traditionalist, just as his mother is, so I dont see that he's thinking "Oh its better to have a handover rather than a death".. It has alwasy been after a death that a new king comes along except for one instance... and that was so traumatic for the British monarchy that they have not wanted to go for abdication.

 

[Betsypaige]

Charles has done a lot for young people, so I don’t get this idea that he’s out of touch. Maybe many youth feel that way, but they’re wrong. He shouldn’t cave just because people can’t get over their Diana obsession. The UK isn’t the Netherlands and shouldn’t try to be.

Charles will be a good King for his people whether they want him or not.

 

[Denville]

He's not going to, I think that he's pretty determined to do his job to the end, just as his mother has been doing. He showed that determination over Camilla, when he wanted ot marry her. That he was absolultey unwilling to give her up but was also determined to hold onto his position and to become King in the course fo time.

 

[Mbruno]

He's not going to, I think that he's pretty determined to do his job to the end, just as his mother has been doing. He showed that determination over Camilla, when he wanted ot marry her. That he was absolultey unwilling to give her up but was also determined to hold onto his position and to become King in the course fo time.

Nonetheless, going forward (this is the "The Future of the British Monarchy" forum), I think the UK should start considering abdication as a viable alternative to succession. Some people still die young for multiple reasons, but that is increasingly less common. I don't think the idea of frequently having kings and queens ascending the throne when they are 60 or 70 and reigning until they are 90 will be very appealing in the long run.


As I said, however, in order to be viable, abdication has to be made easier. Perhaps, if all the Commonwealth realms become republics in the next 50 or 60 years, which is possible, but by no means guaranteed, then it will be straightforward to effect an abdication with a simple act of the UK Parliament that can be passed in the Commons and the Lords in less than a week.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I do not believe that Charles should have to have a time limit on how long he will be the sovereign. His grandfather Prince Albert did not even expect to succeed to the throne. Charles has known about the succession from a young age.

 

[Betsypaige]

I do not believe that Charles should have to have a time limit on how long he will be the sovereign. His grandfather Prince Albert did not even expect to succeed to the throne. Charles has known about the succession from a young age.

I agree completely. Why all of a sudden is this an issue ? Because Charles is unpopular ? He’s used to that. He’ll go about his duties as he was taught to and he believes he should, no different than his mother or any other monarch.