The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Somebody]

I am not British but I greatly admire the British Royal Family. The popularity of the BRF and its future is not something that affects me personally, but I am concerned when I see articles like this:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...oung-britons-are-turning-their-backs-monarchy

Can someone comment on this? Is this a temporary thing in response to Harry and Meghan's whining or as the younger population ages, is there more of a chance of the Monarchy being abolished in the future?

I expect the younger people (note: it is only a small age group representing only 7 years; while the other groups represent 25/15/35+ years) to become more in favor of the monarchy when they grow older. And yes, I do think Harry and Meghan do have something to do with it, as they are only popular among that age group; any other age group prefers the other members of the BRF over them although the 'fall' among 25-49 might also be due to H and M. So, yes, I expect their opinions to change with time - but not for all of them of course; so, I am not really concerned but it isn't a good sign either.

 

[Durham]

Opinions change as we age so who knows what the views of the under 25's may be in middle age or older.

It would be interesting to know what the opinion of the under 25's has been over time.

People of course conflate the BRF with the monarchy. And it isn't the same thing although there is of course a lot of overlap. I'm not convinced that the merits of a republic will ever persuade the majority but there is a danger that the monarchy may become less popular & so less of a unifying force. That would be sad.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Also because of Harry and Meghan, and because of Andrew, and for that infamous Panorama Interview investigation, because of these false narrative-setting worthless series as The Crown, because of blabbing "courtiers', etc. the simple distance every monarchy needs, seems gone.

Monarchy can only function "in the shadow of the throne" not in full sunlight. But what do we see? A son to a future King, a brother to a future King, blabbing on TV about drink and drugs, hanging out the family's laundry outside, for a public already poorly "informed" by The Crown, the tabloids and social media...

This is a recipe for disaster. The absolutely necessary distance needs to return. Towards Queen Elizabeth there is still reverence but that feeling of "I am your Gracious Majesty's Most Humble and Obedient Servant" is totally absent towards other members of the RF.

I hope Charles and William find a way to sail the ship to more calm waters.

 

[Durham]

I agree with much of this. I do think though that the Duke of Cambridge has the potential to be as respected as HM so all is not lost. I think most people will see the next monarch as a bridge between two longer reigns. Unfairly or not William will probably be as much of a focus as the sovereign himself.

As for Harry he may well just become background noise. People will probably grow more weary of the drama & less interested over time. There's only so much mileage in what damage he can do.

A republic would be such a huge change. A real revolution. I just can't envisage any circumstances in which it would happen.

 

[duchessrachel]

I agree with much of this. I do think though that the Duke of Cambridge has the potential to be as respected as HM so all is not lost. I think most people will see the next monarch as a bridge between two longer reigns. Unfairly or not William will probably be as much of a focus as the sovereign himself.

As for Harry he may well just become background noise. People will probably grow more weary of the drama & less interested over time. There's only so much mileage in what damage he can do.

A republic would be such a huge change. A real revolution. I just can't envisage any circumstances in which it would happen.

I agree. He seems to have really come into his own in the past two or three years. He seems to have developed a maturity and regal presence about himself. I know that gaining the respect and reverence that HM has takes a lifetime, but I think that William shows definite signs that he is headed that way if he continues to develop in the direction he appears to be taking.

 

[Osipi]

I agree with you duchessrachel. William has learned the art of diplomacy from his grandmother nicely but he's also taken his own life and has found a wonderful balance for himself. Confident and gradually taking on more and more of his royal public roles and yet balancing it out with a private, happy home life with his family.

This is a man comfortable in his own skin and a happy one at that. ?

 

[ACO]

Times have also changed. People will of course view the monarchy and the role royal family differently. That is just expected with each new generation. Also we have to remember that a great respect is still given to HMQ. She is all most have known and it will be interesting to see how people view the rest once she is gone.

All that said, I don't see much changing with Charles's reign. But things could definitely take a shift for William but especially George. But that is hard to even see right now because that is so far into the future.

 

[Blog Real]

The British monarchy has always known how to adapt to changing times and to the most controversial situations (abdication of King Edward VIII, divorces of the Queen's children, situation of Harry and Meghan). And it will continue. I also think that Prince William learned the art of diplomacy very well from his grandmother. William seems to be a balanced person who has accepted his role and his destiny well. William also found a wife who knows how to play her role in the Royal Family.

 

[Heavs]

An article in support of the monarchy from Camilla Tominey after Graham Smith of Republic called for a debate about the monarchy after the Platinum Jubilee plans were announced:

https://archive.ph/UQ9y1

Claiming that the time was now right for “a serious, honest debate about the future of the monarchy”, he said: “The royals do little for Britain, yet they demand a lot. As we put the Covid crisis behind us next year, national celebrations should be centred on the ordinary people who make this country great.”

Yet his timing is completely off on three fronts. Firstly, in the wake of Harry and Meghan’s departure to the US and following the death of the Duke of Edinburgh, the Royal family’s approval rating has actually gone up.

 

[Durham]

Graham Smith would do his own cause a lot better by focusing on what he sees as the benefits & positives of Britain becoming a republic rather than being critical about "the royals".

 

[Curryong]

https://www.politico.eu/article/british-monarchy-succession-problem-prince-charles/

An article from Politico discussing the nation of ‘Elizabethans’ and why her heir and successor, Charles, is not so popular, especially in Wales, Scotland and parts of England.

[FONT=var(--font-family)]‘While the queen remains personally popular, a series of public relations disasters has tarnished the rest of the royal family. A recent poll found that more than 70 percent of people in Scotland, Wales and central England approved of the queen. Only 50 percent of respondents in Wales and central England approved of her heir, Prince Charles. In Scotland, support for Charles was just 41 percent.’[/FONT]

 

[Durham]

Thank you for the link.

Another article that details the alleged unfitness of the heir. Poor old Charles. Despite his sometimes poor judgement as heir I would be surprised if he acted as monarch any differently from his mother when it comes to constitutional affairs. He’s not stupid.

The author does at least acknowledge that there is no appetite for a republic. Even in Scotland, among the decided, supporters of the status quo outnumber the republicans by 2 to 1. And Scots (& the Welsh) are only a small minority of the British population anyway. It would be English voters, for good or ill, who would almost certainly decide the constitutional future of the UK in any hypothetical referendum on the monarchy. In England at least any republic remains but a pipe dream for some.

I wonder what the author means when she writes that public relations disasters have tarnished the rest of the rf? The Sussexes, DofY & MofK have all acted inappropriately obviously but the rest? Makes no sense.

 

[yukari]

Palace sends for Prince William to rescue Union
Archive: https://archive.ph/g6obH

(...)

Under the proposals the Cambridges would spend far more time at Balmoral, the Queen’s Scottish estate, treating it as a regular home rather than a place for brief holidays. They would also strengthen their ties with St Andrews, the town where they met and fell in love as university students.

(...)

“Advisers want William and Kate to be in Balmoral a lot more and build on their St Andrews connection,” a royal source said. “They want them not to look like visitors but to look like residents.” This is likely to mean that William is not seen wearing a kilt.

“The feeling is that successive governments have let this drift and that the politicians are irreparably divided,” the source added.
A YouGov poll in Scotland in April found that 69 per cent of voters had a positive view of William, with 17 per cent having a negative view. By contrast, YouGov’s most recent survey found that just 22 per cent of Scots had a favourable view of Boris Johnson, while 71 per cent had an unfavourable view.

(...)

So, it was the Wessexes and now it's the Cambridges. In any case, I don't think it's a good idea.

 

[winifred]

The Cambridge children are all at school/nursery in London now, so how exactly are their parents expected to spend lengthy periods in Scotland? The only time would be during the schools' summer break.

 

[muriel]

The Cambridge children are all at school/nursery in London now, so how exactly are their parents expected to spend lengthy periods in Scotland? The only time would be during the schools' summer break.

A lot of these articles can be ignored, IMO. It is entirely possible that W&C will do a lot more tours around the UK, not dissimilar to the one they carried out in Scotland recently.

 

[Mbruno]

https://www.politico.eu/article/british-monarchy-succession-problem-prince-charles/

An article from Politico discussing the nation of ‘Elizabethans’ and why her heir and successor, Charles, is not so popular, especially in Wales, Scotland and parts of England.

[FONT=var(--font-family)]‘While the queen remains personally popular, a series of public relations disasters has tarnished the rest of the royal family. A recent poll found that more than 70 percent of people in Scotland, Wales and central England approved of the queen. Only 50 percent of respondents in Wales and central England approved of her heir, Prince Charles. In Scotland, support for Charles was just 41 percent.’[/FONT]

However, more than 70 percent also approve of the Duke of Cambridge. I don't think the monarchy has a popularity problem. The Prince of Wales does.



Of course, Prince Charles could step down. I don't think he will do it right away upon his accession, but, unlike his mother, I don't think he will want to be King until he is in his 90s.

 

[Denville]

However, more than 70 percent also approve of the Duke of Cambridge. I don't think the monarchy has a popularity problem. The Prince of Wales does.



Of course, Prince Charles could step down. I don't think he will do it right away upon his accession, but, unlike his mother, I don't think he will want to be King until he is in his 90s.

certainly disagree. Charles has waited a long time to be King. He would retire if he felt that he couldn't do the job properly but not otherwise....

 

[Mbruno]

certainly disagree. Charles has waited a long time to be King. He would retire if he felt that he couldn't do the job properly but not otherwise....

As I said, he won't do it now, but, assuming he has an expected 20-year reign, he might step down in 5 or 10 years following his accession. I trust he is a pragmatist.

 

[Denville]

As I said, he won't do it now, but, assuming he has an expected 20-year reign, he might step down in 5 or 10 years following his accession. I trust he is a pragmatist.

Depends what you call a pragmatist. I'd say rahter than he's an idealist and a bit of a dreamer....

 

[yukari]

The Cambridge children are all at school/nursery in London now, so how exactly are their parents expected to spend lengthy periods in Scotland? The only time would be during the schools' summer break.

Louise and James are also still in school, yet it didn't stop the press to write about the Wessexes supposely "move" to Scotland some times ago.

Not to mention most of their engagements are in London (investure, diplomatic meeting, etc) or England in general so flying back and forth between England-Scotland will not be a good look esp with William's Earth Shot.

I think what that advisor meant (if this news has any truth in it), is for the Cambridge to extend their stay during the summer, couple of weeks instead of the usual few days like these past years (similar calendar as the Queen: whole summer in Balmoral and winter in Sandringham) and maybe also increase their engagements in Scotland.

Edit: The Telegraph and SkyNews also reporting this (more like re-report this article). They are reputable, so maybe there's some truth here. And honestly, after the train tour last year, it will not surprise me if no 10 has some input in this plan.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What is sad is that people don't even recognise that Charles already spends more time in Scotland than The Queen - usually a few weeks after Christmas, including New Year as well as over Easter - usually two to three weeks as well as most of August and September.

Of course Charles doesn't count ...

 

[Claire]

Louise and James are also still in school, yet it didn't stop the press to write about the Wessexes supposely "move" to Scotland some times ago.

Not to mention most of their engagements are in London (investure, diplomatic meeting, etc) or England in general so flying back and forth between England-Scotland will not be a good look esp with William's Earth Shot.

I think what that advisor meant (if this news has any truth in it), is for the Cambridge to extend their stay during the summer, couple of weeks instead of the usual few days like these past years (similar calendar as the Queen: whole summer in Balmoral and winter in Sandringham) and maybe also increase their engagements in Scotland.

Edit: The Telegraph and SkyNews also reporting this (more like re-report this article). They are reputable, so maybe there's some truth here. And honestly, after the train tour last year, it will not surprise me if no 10 has some input in this plan.

The telegraph article made the assumption that Louise and James board, which they don't. At the time it was mentioned that as Louise and James are easier to home school from Scotland. It is possible however that only 1 family member is in Scotland at the time the other remaining with the children.
That been said I think all the royals will have a significant amount of royal engagements in Scotland over the year. Even if this was planned for Jubilee.

 

[Durham]

Should this go here?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ortrait-oxford-gavin-williamson-b1862076.html

This does not surprise me. As I've said on another thread recently the monarchy has now become part the culture wars & to mix my metaphors it's not rocket science to work out who's poisoned the well.

It's no longer just the (usually) reasonable discussion about the merits of monarchy vs republic.

 

[duchessrachel]

What is sad is that people don't even recognise that Charles already spends more time in Scotland than The Queen - usually a few weeks after Christmas, including New Year as well as over Easter - usually two to three weeks as well as most of August and September.

Of course Charles doesn't count ...

I heard Prince William say in the speech he made as Lord High Commissioner during the opening ceremony of the CofS that "And my father is never happier than when walking among the hills."

https://www.royal.uk/speech-deliver...igh-commissioner-during-opening-ceremony-cofs

 

[Heavs]

Should this go here?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ortrait-oxford-gavin-williamson-b1862076.html

This does not surprise me. As I've said on another thread recently the monarchy has now become part the culture wars & to mix my metaphors it's not rocket science to work out who's poisoned the well.

I saw that. I think that sort of thing happened before a few times in the 70s but it's not surprising it's happening now. I think it's a shame that it isn't better known that HM actually played a part in helping dismantle things like apartheid (she helped persuade Mrs Thatcher over sanctions) and did the same with some other Commonwealth countries. Of course having been on the throne for nearly 70 years her thoughts have changed as the country's have and no institution is going to be perfect or without room for improvement.

I think it would have happened without the Sussexes but they've certainly thrown jet engine on the fire.

I do think they're going to have to do something proactive to address this without getting too involved in current politics though.

 

[Curryong]

When I first came to Australia in 1970 portraits of the Queen were often seen in Government buildings like courts, post offices, council offices etc. I live in Victoria and haven’t seen a portrait of the Queen (it was generally the famous one from the 1950s of her in tiara and the Garter) for a good twenty years.

I would guess it is much the same in other realms, certainly in NZ, and in some locales within Britain as well. It’s nothing to do with the Sussexes, just a creeping republicanism especially among the under 30s, pointing to the future.

 

[ACO]

You can't really blame the Sussexes for this. This is just a generational thing. The youth have very little tolerance for things like a monarchy. That is across the board and it will get louder as the years continue.

Life is different now. We just came out of a hellish year where people view folks of privilege in a very very different way. And you can't get more privileged than royalty.

Also in a era were the sins of the past are being highlighted more and more. When Kings College apologized for sending an email with a picture of Prince Philip, I knew that was just the beginning.

I am not surprised whatsoever about this news and it won't be the last. They have some work to do with the under 30s.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Should this go here?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ortrait-oxford-gavin-williamson-b1862076.html

This does not surprise me. As I've said on another thread recently the monarchy has now become part the culture wars & to mix my metaphors it's not rocket science to work out who's poisoned the well.

It's no longer just the (usually) reasonable discussion about the merits of monarchy vs republic.

Isn't the reasoning that Queen Elizabeth II might be viewed as a symbol of British colonialism historically inaccurate? As this Guardian article pointed out, her reign will probably be remembered as a period during which the British empire came to an end and British power was diminished.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Should this go here?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ortrait-oxford-gavin-williamson-b1862076.html

This does not surprise me. As I've said on another thread recently the monarchy has now become part the culture wars & to mix my metaphors it's not rocket science to work out who's poisoned the well.

It's no longer just the (usually) reasonable discussion about the merits of monarchy vs republic.

I think it is a bit strange to worry about whether a portrait of the Queen may make some people feel "unwelcome." The Queen is the head of state. If people don't want to see a portrait, they may want to find a college in a country that has does has a pristine history.

 

[Prinsara]

How is the woman who's done practically more than anyone to champion the Commonwealth and treated every member in it with egalitarian consideration going to be viewed as colonialist? I don't understand.