The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Duc_et_Pair]

What Charles and I think William now don't seem to have taken into account is that to do their jobs properly in 2021, they HAVE to undertake at least some travel in Britain and in the Commonwealth. They have to be seen to be interested and involved. That then can see them labelled as hypocrites when they lecture others about ecological footprints etc. This is exactly why they shouldn't be doing this AT ALL! The royal family supports, it is not there to lecture.

It is a mistake that a (future) monarch has to be neutral.
The (future) monarch needs to be aligned with formal Government policy, as said Government is accountable for actions and words by the (future) monarch.

As long as Diana's pleas for a ban on land mines, Charles' pleas for artisanal and organic farming, William's pleas for more eco-sustainability are not conflicting with Government policy, they can (could) go ahead.

It would be conflicting when the Government would -for an example- build three new nuclear energy plants and a (future) monarch would publicly advocate against nuclear energy.

As the adagium is: The King Can Do No Wrong, with such a public position the (future) monarch brings the Government in problems. That will never happen. But it is absolutely not true a (future) monarch has to be neutral. Especially in the colloque singulier between monarch and minister, he/she can be open, in the knowledge all what is said remains confidential.

 

[yukari]

I'm getting rather fed up of all the howling in some parts of the media every time anyone flies anyway. What do they expect them to do, travel by rowing boat? Or just never go anywhere at all? The main issue is industrial pollution, not planes.


It is definitely getting a bit too close to politics, though. Decisions on these issues have to be made by politicians and so, in essence, comments about them are political.

I see someone argued about Greta Thunberg sailing to New York (instead of flying), so maybe that's what everyone should do to earn the right to speak about climate change. And while doing it, maybe the royal should start travel by horse too instead of car ?

In the same note, from the Global Investment Summit:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1450459028212047879

Rhiannon Mills
@SkyRhiannon
She remembers how we pulled together to break codes during the war, now the Queen is asking “government, business & civil society” to work together to “avert the challenges of climate change” She’s written in a brochure welcoming business leaders for the #GlobalInvestmentSummit

Well, I guess The Queen should also stop using helicopters for her (holiday) trip then, before the media start making those particular headlines. She should just smile, wave, and look pretty

 

[Claire]

It is very much a damn if you do damn if you dont situation. Edward and a someone (Sophie or Louise) were photographed walking. Twitter was laughing at the poor Windsors walking to Windsor. I dont think anyone brought the pics - not news worthy. Anne took the underground - it was deemed unroyal. Newspapers are fickle and bias. One day one thing - next day another.

 

[Durham]

It is definitely getting a bit too close to politics, though. Decisions on these issues have to be made by politicians and so, in essence, comments about them are political.

Yes you are absolutely right.

Furthermore why should anyone care what relatives of the monarch think? They may have as much right as anyone else to have an opinion but their "platform" (awful term) is for serving the crown not promoting their own personal interests.

Rightly or wrongly, climate change activism in this country is primarily seen as a middle/upper class obsession far removed from the concerns of most people. Rich people impact the planet more than the poor. The rf lay themselves right open to justified complains about their (private) lifestyles when they lecture the rest of us.

The Prince of Wales can be annoying at the best of times with his out of touch ancien regime dogoodery. He would do himself a favour by just stopping. As would his son(s).

We have politicians, experts, scientists & activists aplenty. We can agree or disagree with them. The rf should stay clear because at the end of the day this issue can only be tackled through governments & legislation. And when that happens not everyone will agree. Being seen as partisan will damage them.

And when all's said & done the monarchy is not the plaything of this present family. They are custodians, nothing more. They need to be humble as well as wise.

 

[camelot23ca]

Most other royals directly in line to the throne by the age of (almost) 40 would have been experiencing the role of heir for quite some time and have more than sufficient experience when in their 40s to step up to the role of Sovereign. In William's case, in the last few years he has been preparing to take over the role of Prince of Wales, while alternatively he could have been preparing for his true 'destination': becoming the monarch.

So, I very much agree with Mbruno that becoming monarch while in your 20s is not ideal at all but neither is doing so in your 70s or 80s. Somewhere in your 40s or early 50s seems a much better age. While few monarch would want to cut their reign short, if William becomes king at an 'acceptable' age, I wouldn't be surprised if he would abdicate at some point to ensure that George might succeed to the throne at a much younger age than his grandfather.

I think the difference between the preparation for becoming the monarch and the preparation for becoming the Prince of Wales is in intensity, not in character. William has enough training and experience now to make a smooth transition to becoming King, whether that happens in twenty years time or next week. I think the main challenges relate to the new monarch being willing to listen to those around them and accept the new limitations on various freedoms they’ve enjoyed up to that point. The Queen was able to
hit the ground running at age 25 (with little prior training or experience) because she handled those challenges well. It remains to be seen whether Charles will adjust as well, despite being much better prepared for the role than his mother ever was.

As things stand now I think William hit the demographic sweet spot in that he didn’t become the heir as a child or a very young adult but he’ll most likely become the monarch before he’s sixty. He got to experience life relatively free of constraints in his teens and 20s but will have plenty of time to make his mark as King.

George will probably be older when he becomes King, but I think people will also be living longer, healthier lives by then. 75 might not be the new 50 by that time, but it might be pretty close.

 

[rob2008]

Impact of unification of Ireland

I wonder if Northern Ireland combining with the Republic could devalue or destabilise the British Monarchy. Also, a separated Scottish state would be a further loss to the British Monarchy. The Scottish state could become republican - or even monarchical by adopting a sovereign from Denmark or elsewhere.

 

[JR76]

I wonder if Northern Ireland combining with the Republic could devalue or destabilise the British Monarchy. Also, a separated Scottish state would be a further loss to the British Monarchy. The Scottish state could become republican - or even monarchical by adopting a sovereign from Denmark or elsewhere.

I highly doubt that an independent Scotland would import a foreign royal family. If such a state would remain a monarchy it would be with a descendant of Queen Elizabeth as its head of state

 

[rob2008]

I highly doubt that an independent Scotland would import a foreign royal family. If such a state would remain a monarchy it would be with a descendant of Queen Elizabeth as its head of state

The Danes are the same family as the British monarchy - Schleswig Holstein Sonderburg Glücksburg/ Oldenburg. Descendants of Elizabeth II are Danish descendants through Philip of Denmark and Greece so there is a sound genealogical reason for going Danish.

 

[Curryong]

I don’t think the Scottish people are particularly pro-monarchy by nature or conviction.

And IMO, if in the future the Scots have a referendum to rid themselves of the BRF/King Charles (following one on an independent Scotland) the last thing on earth that they would consider doing would be to import a completely foreign royal to be King/Queen, from Denmark or anywhere else.

 

[Osipi]

I don’t think the Scottish people are particularly pro-monarchy by nature or conviction.

And IMO, if in the future the Scots have a referendum to rid themselves of the BRF/King Charles (following one on an independent Scotland) the last thing on earth that they would consider doing would be to import a completely foreign royal to be King/Queen, from Denmark or anywhere else.

I agree. I can hear it now. The proposal is to install a Danish royal in the role of monarch of an independent Scotland. After a few pints, the old gent looks at the bartender and goes "Well Niall.... here comes Brentrance!"

If Scotland is going to go for anything, it'll be to be their own independent nation again as is the Republic of Ireland. However, I am hoping that Scotland would remain in the Commonwealth of Nations.

 

[rob2008]

I don’t think the Scottish people are particularly pro-monarchy by nature or conviction.

And IMO, if in the future the Scots have a referendum to rid themselves of the BRF/King Charles (following one on an independent Scotland) the last thing on earth that they would consider doing would be to import a completely foreign royal to be King/Queen, from Denmark or anywhere else.

You are probably correct. I was more interested in the possible scenarios in the Irish context. Northern Ireland could lose its link to the British monarchy thanks to its new border arrangements with either GB or the Republic of Ireland (either of which will cause considerable problems of identity in NI). The Platinum Jubilee is intended as a bonding exercise to bring the British people closer together under the one thing that unites them - Elizabeth II. The 2022 jubilee might work to delay the departure of NI but it is not going to get rid of the new border. The value of the royal family has its limits - even in NI.

 

[Somebody]

I don’t think the Scottish people are particularly pro-monarchy by nature or conviction.

And IMO, if in the future the Scots have a referendum to rid themselves of the BRF/King Charles (following one on an independent Scotland) the last thing on earth that they would consider doing would be to import a completely foreign royal to be King/Queen, from Denmark or anywhere else.

I agree. Another more logical route than 'go Danish' would be to go back to the Jacobite succession, which would mean to ask the Duke of Bavaria (Franz) to become their king.

The line of succession would be:
1. Duke Max in Bavaria
2. Hereditary Princess Sophie of Liechtenstein, born Duchess in Bavaria
3. Prince Joseph-Wenzel of Liechtenstein
4. Prince Georg of Liechtenstein
5. Prince Nikolaus of Liechtenstein
6. Princess Marie-Caroline of Liechtenstein
7. Duchess Marie-Caroline of Württemberg, born Duchess in Bavaria
8. Duke Carl-Theodor of Württemberg
9. Duchess Sophie of Württemberg
10. Duchess Pauline of Württemberg
11. Duchess Anna of Württemberg
12. Duchess Helena in Bavaria
13. Duchess Elisabeth in Bavaria
14. Maximilian Terberger
15. Ottora Terberger
16. Duchess Maria Anna in Bavaria
17. Heinrich Runow
18. Johannes Runow

N.B. If Sophie would be considered ineligible because she married a heir to a foreign throne, the line of succession would move straight from 1 to 7.

 

[Mbruno]

I don’t think the Scottish people are particularly pro-monarchy by nature or conviction.

And IMO, if in the future the Scots have a referendum to rid themselves of the BRF/King Charles (following one on an independent Scotland) the last thing on earth that they would consider doing would be to import a completely foreign royal to be King/Queen, from Denmark or anywhere else.

They could offer the crown to the Jacobite heir, who is now Franz, Duke of Bavaria (the most senior descendant of Charles I by male-preference cognatic primogeniture; Elizabeth II of course descends only from James I).

 

[Heavs]

In 2014 Salmond and Sturgeon promised to keep the monarchy in the event of an independent Scotland because it was thought that that was a more popular option than a republic and that it might convince some wavering voters to vote Yes- at least whilst HM is alive.

If Scotland becomes independent they're certainly NOT going to import anyone to be the new HOS. The SNP's mantra has always been "Scottish people (the ones living in Scotland) should decide Scotland's future and no one else".

You might as well say "Well the current royals are descended from the DRF, lets just keep them."

The Jacobite succession idea gets some play in the media whenever this comes up because it's a "romantic" idea but it would never work or be accepted in reality. And apart from anything else I don't think most of those on the list would want it. Especially not anyone from Liechtenstein who are some of the last semi absolute monarchs in Europe with a huge amount of money and very little scrutiny or downsides compared to the BRF. I imagine the same goes for the rest of the Bavarian sides of the family.

Also, I do think the families being strongly RC would be a divisive issue for some Scots still.

As for NI, the situations involved there are tense at the moment clearly, but there's no reason to completely write it off as part of the UK just yet. The BRF are currently working hard to show NI some love in this difficult centenary year, with Charles and Camilla, The Cambridges, The Wessexes and Princess Anne all making visits there in the last few months.

As for what would happen to the monarchy, well maybe England and Wales would completely give up on the current system of government as well or would rally around it. There are a lot of factors involved.

 

[rob2008]

They could offer the crown to the Jacobite heir, who is now Franz, Duke of Bavaria (the most senior descendant of Charles I by male-preference cognatic primogeniture; Elizabeth II of course descends only from James I).

I don't think Scottish people would wish to have a "King of Scotland and Prince of Liechtenstein" who are German speakers and right wing, devout Catholic. In any case they are incredibly wealthy and would see no financial benefit in relocating to Edinburgh Castle. British people like to scrutinise and question their 'betters' and the wealth would be subject of much discussion. The Prince of Liechtenstein has considerable political power and if he thought he could rule politically he would find himself out of a job very quickly - which is what brought down the catholic Stuart ancestors in Britain over 400 years ago. Maybe Ireland would have them.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Danes are the same family as the British monarchy - Schleswig Holstein Sonderburg Glücksburg/ Oldenburg. Descendants of Elizabeth II are Danish descendants through Philip of Denmark and Greece so there is a sound genealogical reason for going Danish.

They aren't only Danish descendants through Philip but though Elizabeth as well. Elizabeth's great-grandmother was Princess Alexandra of Denmark whose brother became George I of the Hellenes.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I agree. I can hear it now. The proposal is to install a Danish royal in the role of monarch of an independent Scotland. After a few pints, the old gent looks at the bartender and goes "Well Niall.... here comes Brentrance!"

If Scotland is going to go for anything, it'll be to be their own independent nation again as is the Republic of Ireland. However, I am hoping that Scotland would remain in the Commonwealth of Nations.

I see no reason why an independent Scotland wouldn't remain in the Commonwealth whether they keep the monarchy or not. Most of the countries of the Commonwealth are republics, with a new republic about to be added in Barbados. There are even countries with monarchs other than Elizabeth II.

 

[Durham]

SNP policy as mentioned by Heavs is to keep the crown. How long that would last in an independent Scotland is open to question.

The most likely scenario would be a referendum on the monarchy in Scotland. I suspect a republic would win because the Scots would not to share a head of state with England. They would want a resident Scottish hofs & a governer general just wouldn't cut it.

I can't see why there would be any impact on English attitudes towards the monarchy.

The situation in Ireland is sensitive & complex. Hopefully whatever happens will be peaceful. But both communities need to feel that their culture & traditions are respected. Otherwise peace will remain elusive.

 

[Susan D]

The Scottish would not want any monarchy, not the Stuarts, the Windsors, any. The Scottish hate the cost of a monarchy.

 

[Claire]

Unfortunately the Scottish will realize that a President costs just as much, sometimes more, after you had one for a while.

 

[padams2359]

Lyndon Johnson’s widow had secret service protection for over 60 years.

 

[Claire]

Below are the predictions (surmising's) of a group of essentially my friends that meetings monthly and discuss everything from politics to hem lines. They have given me permission to place this here. None of them are currently under NDA or hold any affiliation to the RF - 2 are American. They do however have links to the palace and various media/focus groups in the United Kingdom. I am placing this here for others to counters their arguments and general debate. These are all predictions.

1. Upon succession to the throne Prince Charles will release William's succession plan. Essentially something on the lines of if Prince Charles lives to 85 will abdicate on this date. Prince Charles will reign jointly with Prince William in order to facilitate this transition.
2. The Kents will retire upon succession. Verdict is still out on the Gloucester.
3. Although Camilla will be the highest rank woman in court. The business of running court will be given to Kate. Camilla will be crowned Consort - not Queen and will not increase her current duties.
4. We are expecting a change in the court protocol - the Princess Royal will be given precedent to Prince Andrew and Princess Edward. This will only apply to events and not line of succession.
5. The National Anthem will be changed possible via referendum. Also a decision will be made to remove the monarch's image from the currency and stamps.
6. The Earl of Wessex will not be made Duke of Edinburgh. It is possible that he might be offered another dukedom - either by the Queen or on succession. Edward will however move to the role of minor royal and will essentially be the last royal to occupy this position ever. Edward and Sophie will be retired when Prince George becomes a full time working royal.
7. Prince Harry will be given an offer to return about succession.

 

[Durham]

Apart from replacing queen with king why would the national anthem be changed? To what?

There's no movement for changing the anthem as there was in some of the Commonwealth Realms decades ago.

The only debate over an anthem is the perennial one about an anthem specifically for England as distinct from the UK. The obvious answer being Jerusalem of course .

And a joint monarchy? Again why? That's a matter for parliament anyway.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Apart from replacing queen with king why would the national anthem be changed? To what?

There's no movement for changing the anthem as there was in some of the Commonwealth Realms decades ago.

The only debate over an anthem is the perennial one about an anthem specifically for England as distinct from the UK. The obvious answer being Jerusalem of course .

And a joint monarchy? Again why? That's a matter for parliament anyway.

And not just the British parliament but the parliament of the 14 other realms (Barbados becoming a republic soon so I have reduced the 15 to 14) as well as the six Australian states.

 

[Mbruno]

Below are the predictions (surmising's) of a group of essentially my friends that meetings monthly and discuss everything from politics to hem lines. They have given me permission to place this here. None of them are currently under NDA or hold any affiliation to the RF - 2 are American. They do however have links to the palace and various media/focus groups in the United Kingdom. I am placing this here for others to counters their arguments and general debate. These are all predictions.

1. Upon succession to the throne Prince Charles will release William's succession plan. Essentially something on the lines of if Prince Charles lives to 85 will abdicate on this date. Prince Charles will reign jointly with Prince William in order to facilitate this transition.
2. The Kents will retire upon succession. Verdict is still out on the Gloucester.
3. Although Camilla will be the highest rank woman in court. The business of running court will be given to Kate. Camilla will be crowned Consort - not Queen and will not increase her current duties.
4. We are expecting a change in the court protocol - the Princess Royal will be given precedent to Prince Andrew and Princess Edward. This will only apply to events and not line of succession.
5. The National Anthem will be changed possible via referendum. Also a decision will be made to remove the monarch's image from the currency and stamps.
6. The Earl of Wessex will not be made Duke of Edinburgh. It is possible that he might be offered another dukedom - either by the Queen or on succession. Edward will however move to the role of minor royal and will essentially be the last royal to occupy this position ever. Edward and Sophie will be retired when Prince George becomes a full time working royal.
7. Prince Harry will be given an offer to return about succession.

I think most of that plan is implausible.

1. Prince Charles cannot "jointly reign" with Prince William as there can only be one King at a time (hence the name "monarchy" as opposed to "diarchy").
2. Although I believe it is possible that Charles might one day abdicate, I don't expect him to announce a compulsory "retirement age" (e.g. 85) to do so. Even in countries where there is a tradition of abdication like in the Netherlands, there isn't a set age limit for abdication.
3. Only Parliament could place the Princess Royal above her brothers in the order of succession as that requires changing the law (and, as seen in 2013, whenever the succession to the Crown is involved, the law has to be changed in the Commonwealth realms too). Precedence, on the other hand, is assigned separately in the UK to men and women, so it doesn't really make sense to say that the Princess Royal will be given higher precedence than her brothers (who are of a different gender). She could be given higher precedence than her sister-in-law, the Countess of Wessex, when the latter is accompanied by her husband, but I don't see why Charles would do that, especially considering that the Earl of Wessex will still be ahead of the Princess Royal in the line of succession and the King can't change that unilaterally (as explained before).
4. If Camilla is not publicly made Queen, which I still think is a possibility, I assume she will not be crowned. THere is no precedence AFAIK to crown a "prince consort", so, by extension, a princess consort would not be crowned either. Incidentally, in the UK, I think, crowns only apply to Kings and Queens; even princes wear coronets, rather than crowns.
5. As far as the national anthem is concerned, I don't know either where that suggestion is coming from, but a possible solution, used in other countries, is to have a national anthem and a royal anthem. It wouldn't quite work IMHO in the UK though because the UK is composed of different nations and a "national" anthem that suited England might not be acceptable to Scotland (or Wales) and vice-versa. The "royal anthem" has the advantage of being plurinational.

The points which I think are (somewhat) plausible are:

a) The Kents and the Gloucesters will retire.

b) The Wessexes will retire at some point when William and Catherine's children are grown-ups.

c) Prince Edward will not be given the title of Duke of Edinburgh (although that would be very mean IMHO and disrespectful to the will both of Prince Philip and the current Queen).

d) Prince Harry will be given an offer to return to full-time royal duties.

 

[Durham]

And not just the British parliament but the parliament of the 14 other realms (Barbados becoming a republic soon so I have reduced the 15 to 14) as well as the six Australian states.

Well yes indeed if such a hypothetical monarchy was envisaged.

I can't imagine supporters of the monarchy in the three "settler" realms would want that sort of constitutional discussion requiring parliamentary time in Ottawa, Canberra & Wellington. Raises all sorts of questions surely.

 

[Durham]

I think most of that plan is implausible.

1. Prince Charles cannot "jointly reign" with Prince William as there can only be one King at a time (hence the name "monarchy" as opposed to "diarchy").
   

Well we had William & Mary so we can have joint monarchs but that was parliament's decision to make.

 

[Mbruno]

Well we had William & Mary so we can have joint monarchs but that was parliament's decision to make.

Ok, point taken, but, as you said, that was possible by Parliament's decision. I doubt anyone would propose that upon Charles' accession or that Charles himself would agree to it.

 

[Durham]

a) The Kents and the Gloucesters will retire.

b) The Wessexes will retire at some point when William and Catherine's children are grown-ups.

c) Prince Edward will not be given the title of Duke of Edinburgh (although that would be very mean IMHO and disrespectful to the will both of Prince Philip and the current Queen).

d) Prince Harry will be given an offer to return to full-time royal duties.

a to c is probable

d is highly unlikely given public opinion in the UK.

 

[Durham]

I doubt anyone would propose that upon Charles' accession or that Charles himself would agree to it.

Yes I agree. There's no need for such an arrangement & no demand for one. It would just be a complication.