The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[TLLK]

Attending a family funeral is an "engagement"?! They're a weird mob!

I believe this is where the Court Circular functions as an official diary too. It's marking the date, time and the attendees at the funeral but would not be considered an actual engagement. I don't believe that it would be considered as one by the people ie Tim O'Donovan who are famous for keeping an annual tally of BRF engagements.

 

[Betsypaige]

I think this article belongs here...

I love seeing Charles and William so unified...

I’m sorry for the Queen that she’s suffering seeing Andrew suffer, but there is no way back for Andrew in public life. I do think he should be allowed to be made useful, and I’m sure there are ways to do that, but as a working a Royal? No - the public would be outraged.

She said Charles, 72, and the Duke of Cambridge, 38, are leading this discussion and are 'more united in their vision for the future of the monarchy than they ever have been'.


'The sources I speak to say that the notion of "sovereign" is what has reunited them in the wake of Andrew and "Megxit" - that they are stronger now than ever and more focused,' she told host Kate Thornton.


'Credit to the Prince of Wales, who instigated that meeting as an initial icebreaker, because no-one realises and appreciates more than Prince Charles that a divided Royal Family is not the unified monarchy that people want to see.'

She added that Prince Andrew's future role remains an unresolved issue, as is the continued lack of trust between Prince William and Prince Harry, 36, despite their conversation following Prince Philip's funeral on April 17.

Nicholl said Charles and William both see 'potential for disaster' should they bring the Duke of York, 61, back into the royal fold.

...

Royal photographer, another guest on the episode, Arthur Edwards also observed that Her Majesty and her second son are 'quite close'.

'I've seen him [Prince Andrew] go to church with the Queen up at Sandringham,' he told the programme.

'They're quite close, and the Queen knows he's suffering. I think she will make every effort to get him back and I think it can happen.'

....

Prince Charles and Prince William are 'more united than ever'

Katie Nicholl told this week's episode of True Royalty TV's The Royal Beat that the Duke of Edinburgh's passing on April 9, aged 99, marked 'the end of an era'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I don't see Charles abdicating either, but I think William might do it, just like Beatrix and Albert did back in 2013.

And Juan Carlos, and Benedictus XVI, and Akihito... The impossible is possible. I feel Charles is a rational man. When he feels the monarchy is better in younger, firmer, hands then he will hand over the reins. For some reasons I see him less dogmatic than his mother.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It makes no sense. A regime, be it monarchy or republic, is much more than inaugurating hospitals or schools.
Monarchies must continue, it is a valid regime.

I do live in a monarchy and yes, laying first stones, cut ribbons, plant memorial trees and baptize ships by nicely dressed princesses with a few hofdames in their slipstream is more or less their core business indeed.

Maybe one would say: micro credits, illiteracy, inclusive society, but that are more personal pet topics from royals than their core business: hobbling in a horsedrawn carriage on their way to Parliament to fulfill a constitutional duty. And of course, set their obliged signature under documents they even have not read at all or receive new ministers they seem to have "appointed" but never ever have spoken to before.

 

[Somebody]

I doubt Charles doesn't want to be King. He has always been a man of ideas and I believe he wants to leave his mark in the institution, including reforming it. He cannot do it unless he is King one day.

I am not sure that Charles is able to do more as a king than as the prince of Wales. IIRC Charles himself said that he is very aware of the limitations that will come with his role as king; limitations that he does NOT have as the prince of Wales. So, probably he currently he has the best of both worlds. He is not yet king but can very much start to shape the future of the monarchy as his mother is entrusting him with more and more; while he still has more room to speak out and take on his own interests than he will have as king.

As others said before: his legacy is more likely to be how he reinvented the role of Prince of Wales.

 

[Betsypaige]

I am not sure that Charles is able to do more as a king than as the prince of Wales. IIRC Charles himself said that he is very aware of the limitations that will come with his role as king; limitations that he does NOT have as the prince of Wales. So, probably he currently he has the best of both worlds. He is not yet king but can very much start to shape the future of the monarchy as his mother is entrusting him with more and more; while he still has more room to speak out and take on his own interests than he will have as king.

As others said before: his legacy is more likely to be how he reinvented the role of Prince of Wales.

I agree, and I’ve said this myself....but, his duties as King will still be significant, including/especially continuing it.

I expect Charles will primarily be remembered, as King, for how he comforts and unites his people after his mother passes.

 

[Alison H]

That's just life. "The King is dead. Long live the King." There's always a long gap between accession and coronation for that reason: accession is a sombre time. Life has sad times and happy times.

 

[Betsypaige]

That's just life. "The King is dead. Long live the King." There's always a long gap between accession and coronation for that reason: accession is a sombre time. Life has sad times and happy times.

Which.........always makes me wonder why people celebrate the day HM came to the throne. It's NOT a happy day.... IMO, celebrate coronation day, not accession day, which requires a death to take place.

 

[Roslyn]

I believe this is where the Court Circular functions as an official diary too. It's marking the date, time and the attendees at the funeral but would not be considered an actual engagement. I don't believe that it would be considered as one by the people ie Tim O'Donovan who are famous for keeping an annual tally of BRF engagements.

Yes; this makes sense. It has a wider purpose.

 

[Heavs]

Which.........always makes me wonder why people celebrate the day HM came to the throne. It's NOT a happy day.... IMO, celebrate coronation day, not accession day, which requires a death to take place.

We don't, really. We celebrate in June, either on the 2nd which is the Coronation and/or on her official birthday later on. Partly because there's half a chance

Ascension Day on Feb 6th is always kept quietly.

Jubilees celebrate the year she ascended (1952) but are always celebrated in June on the coronation date.

 

[Osipi]

Although I believe that Charles will keep mostly to a traditional mode of a reign and not "modernize" or "revamp" things overly much while he is king, I do think that we'll see Charles depending on and consulting William even more so as opposed to Elizabeth's very long reign, Charles' will almost seem like a transitional reign between Elizabeth II and William V.

Charles will not abdicate any more than his mother will. He'll find the value of William stepping into and taking on the role of Duke of Cornwall and possibly The Prince of Wales and using those roles to prepare William and his family for the day he does become King.

 

[BriarRose]

I think William and Catherine need Charles to be King for a sizeable amount of time. It's going to be a radical change in their day-to-day lives when William becomes the Duke of Cornwall and is installed as the Prince of Wales.

Whenever I read how insiders believe that Charles will abdicate in favor of Willaim being King, I think it ignores that William isn't ready yet, and likely doesn't want to change his family life in that way for quite some time. Given the incredible longevity of that family, William has a good chance of not being King while his children grow up.

 

[Denville]

I dont believe that Charles would want to give up being King unless he were to get very frail and poorly and then I think he might hand over. But yes, William is probably rather reluctant to take it on before he has to...
I think he's been glad to have had a few years without too many royal duties, with his job and his wife and kids and he will hope that George can grow up in peace..

 

[Blog Real]

I do not believe that Charles intends to abdicate, unless he is very unpopular or there is a scandal like in Spain. Other than that, he won't abdicate.
I think William will be king when his father dies. William must be preparing now for all the changes that will occur in his life in the years to come, when Charles becomes king. He will take on more responsibilities and this will already cause more changes in his life and that of his family.

 

[ACO]

Well Kate's uncle Gary thinks HMQ should step down and allow the Cambridges to be young monarch as it would be best for the BRF. He has a new interview in the Mail. Quite the read.

 

[Roslyn]

I do live in a monarchy and yes, laying first stones, cut ribbons, plant memorial trees and baptize ships by nicely dressed princesses with a few hofdames in their slipstream is more or less their core business indeed.

Maybe one would say: micro credits, illiteracy, inclusive society, but that are more personal pet topics from royals than their core business: hobbling in a horsedrawn carriage on their way to Parliament to fulfill a constitutional duty. And of course, set their obliged signature under documents they even have not read at all or receive new ministers they seem to have "appointed" but never ever have spoken to before.

These days monarchies are curious things, IMO. There is a need for a head of state as a symbol of national unity on the world stage, and to perform those actual powers the duties the head of state in a constitutional monarchy has, such as opening parliament, assenting to legislation, appointing ministers and receiving ambassadors and foreign heads of state. These tasks have to be performed, whether after hobbling in a horsedrawn carriage dressed up in fine gold and silk clothing or just driving there without fanfare wearing ordinary day dress. This is where the decision has to be made as to not whether but how these tasks are going to be performed.

The British head of state is a monarch who has lots of fancy carriages and lots of money and property and other accumulated wealth of jewels and other treasure... most of which actually belongs to the people. The monarchs can only retain their elevated social position if the people allow it, and the people are going to get really cheesed off if they don't get to enjoy all their goodies by seeing the jewels and regalia on show. The opening of parliament has been described as "an elaborate ceremony showcasing British history, culture and contemporary politics to large crowds and television viewers" and is one of those events where the public's property is put on show for them to enjoy, so is unlikely to stop, along with all the other elaborate events with carriages and pagentry and bagpipes and fancy uniforms. The people enjoy seeing this stuff; it's great entertainment and it's good for tourism.

I do not include the ribbon-cutting and handing out of prizes at local fairs, and much if not all of the charitable work the various family members perform (apart from the heir, who is in a separate category, because he has to keep himself busy and useful and is separately funded) as part of the core business of the monarchy. I see it as really only busy work to keep the royal family members occupied and give the people a connection to the royals.

Charles and William are going to have to decide how much of that busy work is going to be retained: how many charities are going to have royal patrons, how many bridges, fairs, etc., are going to be opened by a member of the royal family and how many trees planted by them. When they have decided what work has to be done, they can work out how many working royals are going to be required in order to perform that work. Or maybe they will firstly decide the number of working royals they want and then assign the tasks. Either way, a decision is going to have to be made.

 

[Betsypaige]

We don't, really. We celebrate in June, either on the 2nd which is the Coronation and/or on her official birthday later on. Partly because there's half a chance

Ascension Day on Feb 6th is always kept quietly.

Jubilees celebrate the year she ascended (1952) but are always celebrated in June on the coronation date.

I wasn’t very clear...sorry! I think I probably confused “attention” (lots of articles) with “celebration”.

Thanks for clarifying!

I think William and Catherine need Charles to be King for a sizeable amount of time. It's going to be a radical change in their day-to-day lives when William becomes the Duke of Cornwall and is installed as the Prince of Wales.

Whenever I read how insiders believe that Charles will abdicate in favor of Willaim being King, I think it ignores that William isn't ready yet, and likely doesn't want to change his family life in that way for quite some time. Given the incredible longevity of that family, William has a good chance of not being King while his children grow up.

Those “insiders” just are expressing wishful thinking, or the thinking of the British public ..Unfortunately for them, however they feel about Charles - and Camilla- Charles is going to be King when his mother passes. They don’t care about what will actually happen or even about what William would want

Osipi:

I agree

Although I believe that Charles will keep mostly to a traditional mode of a reign and not "modernize" or "revamp" things overly much while he is king, I do think that we'll see Charles depending on and consulting William even more so as opposed to Elizabeth's very long reign, Charles' will almost seem like a transitional reign between Elizabeth II and William V.

Charles will not abdicate any more than his mother will. He'll find the value of William stepping into and taking on the role of Duke of Cornwall and possibly The Prince of Wales and using those roles to prepare William and his family for the day he does become King.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

These days monarchies are curious things, IMO. There is a need for a head of state as a symbol of national unity on the world stage, and to perform those actual powers the duties the head of state in a constitutional monarchy has, such as opening parliament, assenting to legislation, appointing ministers and receiving ambassadors and foreign heads of state. These tasks have to be performed, whether after hobbling in a horsedrawn carriage dressed up in fine gold and silk clothing or just driving there without fanfare wearing ordinary day dress. This is where the decision has to be made as to not whether but how these tasks are going to be performed.

The British head of state is a monarch who has lots of fancy carriages and lots of money and property and other accumulated wealth of jewels and other treasure... most of which actually belongs to the people. The monarchs can only retain their elevated social position if the people allow it, and the people are going to get really cheesed off if they don't get to enjoy all their goodies by seeing the jewels and regalia on show. The opening of parliament has been described as "an elaborate ceremony showcasing British history, culture and contemporary politics to large crowds and television viewers" and is one of those events where the public's property is put on show for them to enjoy, so is unlikely to stop, along with all the other elaborate events with carriages and pagentry and bagpipes and fancy uniforms. The people enjoy seeing this stuff; it's great entertainment and it's good for tourism.

I do not include the ribbon-cutting and handing out of prizes at local fairs, and much if not all of the charitable work the various family members perform (apart from the heir, who is in a separate category, because he has to keep himself busy and useful and is separately funded) as part of the core business of the monarchy. I see it as really only busy work to keep the royal family members occupied and give the people a connection to the royals.

Charles and William are going to have to decide how much of that busy work is going to be retained: how many charities are going to have royal patrons, how many bridges, fairs, etc., are going to be opened by a member of the royal family and how many trees planted by them. When they have decided what work has to be done, they can work out how many working royals are going to be required in order to perform that work. Or maybe they will firstly decide the number of working royals they want and then assign the tasks. Either way, a decision is going to have to be made.

We live in a world without limits. We can see and hear and follow everything all over the world 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. For longer than a year many of us have worked from home and still could do our job perfectly, like all of our colleagues. We have discovered that we do not need to travel to a client in Bologna or to a conference in Leipzig. We have discovered that we can perfectly purchase a new home without even having been in a bank: everything goes digital. And this is to stay.

Then it is not surprising that in a modern monarchy 3.0 there will be a review of the concept that one needs a whole group of children, cousins or in-laws to be honorary patrons of the Abbotsford Flying Club, the Friends of the Sea Otter, the Swinley Golf Club or the Ski Club of Britain.

How can France launch their new nuclear-powered gigantic aircraft carrier to replace the Charles de Gaulle without a royal? *shock* . How can the Milano-Cortina Winter Olympics in Italy (an opportunity currently used to do gigantic infrastructure works) be opened without a royal? *shock*.

Everyone sees that life goes on. Whether or not Princess Beatrice is patron of the Housewives' Needlework Guild, yes or no. I can imagine that in the wider prospect of a modern monarchy all facets will be part of consideration. The outcome can be: we change nothing. The current monarchy works for us. Who knows.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I haven't seen any polls stating that the British public want a slimmed down Monarchy, [...]

Here is one taken by YouGov in January 2020.

Do you think a "slimmed down" Royal Family, with fewer members of the family actively carrying out royal duties, is a good or bad thing?

A good thing 46%
A bad thing 11%
Neither 28%
Don't know 16%​

Interestingly, younger Britons are more likely to be neutral on the issue while older Britons are more likely to view a slimmed-down monarchy as a good thing.

Abdication gives the monarch the chance to enjoy his or her latter years in relative peace and comfort doing what they really want to do like other retired people can after a long working life, and gives the heir and his/her spouse a chance to get out there and do the ceremonial duties and royal visits while they are young enough to be able to enjoy them wholeheartedly. The public gets to see a more active and more attractive royal couple and the country has a more vibrant and youthful face on the world stage.

Personally, I am pleased with the fact that hereditary monarchy - with or without abdication - sometimes grants an opportunity for less attractive and/or less youthful faces to enjoy an active and vibrant part on the world stage.

 

[Curryong]

I believe that polls results that ask about a slimmed down royal family would vary depending on the format of the question.

For instance I think that if members of the British public were asked about members of the royal family carrying out duties for the Queen and being compensated for it with allowances from the monarch and from the Sovereign Grant would be answered very differently from one that doesn’t mention the money.


Many members of the public are very vague about what exactly the Sovereign Grant encompasses. However, I can remember polls from years ago in which survey respondents were not keen to keep on paying for royals they regarded as surplus to requirements, specifically as they felt their expenditures came from taxpayers money (which ultimately it does.)

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Charles will make British royal history when he becomes King Charles III. He will be the first male monarch since King George VI.

 

[Heavs]

Charles will make British royal history when he becomes King Charles III. He will be the first male monarch since King George VI.

Just a question, how is that making history? It will have only been one Queen in between two the two Kings and even in BRF history there have been periods of two Queens Regnant following each other. Edward VII even took over from a mother who at the time held the longest reigning monarch title at 63 years.

 

[Denville]

Just a question, how is that making history? It will have only been one Queen in between two the two Kings and even in BRF history there have been periods of two Queens Regnant following each other. Edward VII even took over from a mother who at the time held the longest reigning monarch title at 63 years.

Its not. It might be making history if there had been 3 or 4 queens as there were in the Netherlands and then a male monarch came long...

 

[Leopoldine]

This is not good.

Labor MP Khalid Mahmood, the shadow defense minister, quit.

He had a lot to say. most notably that current party members "have more in common with Californian high society than the kind of people who voted in Hartlepool yesterday."

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Just a question, how is that making history? It will have only been one Queen in between two the two Kings and even in BRF history there have been periods of two Queens Regnant following each other. Edward VII even took over from a mother who at the time held the longest reigning monarch title at 63 years.

Charles will be making history because he will be the first of the male monarchs to succeed his mother. If nothing disrupts the succession, after King Charles III are King William V and King George VII.

 

[Curryong]

But that has happened before, as has been pointed out here, when King Edward VII succeeded his mother Queen Victoria in 1901, after a reign of almost 64 years. He was succeeded himself by his son and a grandson as will happen with Charles.

To make history, an event IMO should be unprecedented, and Charles succeeding his mother is not. It’s been done before.

 

[Alison H]

This is not good.

Labor MP Khalid Mahmood, the shadow defense minister, quit.

He had a lot to say. most notably that current party members "have more in common with Californian high society than the kind of people who voted in Hartlepool yesterday."

He said:

"A London-based bourgeoisie, with the support of brigades of woke social media warriors, has effectively captured the party ... but their politics – obsessed with identity, division and even tech utopianism – have more in common with those of Californian high society than the kind of people who voted in Hartlepool yesterday.

“The loudest voices in the Labour movement over the past year in particular have focused more on pulling down Churchill’s statue than they have on helping people pull themselves up in the world."

There are many reasons why people here in Northern England have turned away from the Labour Party, and this isn't the place to discuss them, but I don't think he was particularly referring to Harry and Meghan when he said "Californian high society".

 

[Denville]

Charles will be making history because he will be the first of the male monarchs to succeed his mother. If nothing disrupts the succession, after King Charles III are King William V and King George VII.

How does that make history?

 

[Denville]

He said:

"A London-based bourgeoisie, with the support of brigades of woke social media warriors, has effectively captured the party ... but their politics – obsessed with identity, division and even tech utopianism – have more in common with those of Californian high society than the kind of people who voted in Hartlepool yesterday.

“The loudest voices in the Labour movement over the past year in particular have focused more on pulling down Churchill’s statue than they have on helping people pull themselves up in the world."

There are many reasons why people here in Northern England have turned away from the Labour Party, and this isn't the place to discuss them, but I don't think he was particularly referring to Harry and Meghan when he said "Californian high society".

I think he has a point but Im not sure what it has to do with future of the monarchy....

 

[Alison H]

I assume the original post was linking "Californian high society" to Harry and Meghan, but, no, I don't think there's any connection with the future of the monarchy!