The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Duc_et_Pair]

On the very moment the Queen signs the Act of Abdication, or ends her last breath, Charles is King.

On the very same moment, his lawfully wedded spouse is Queen. That is how it is now.

And any suggestion of a joint monarchy, pfffff, it is not even remotely a serious option. After all, when King Charles III is no longer able to execute the royal prerogative, his son, The Duke of Cornwall, Rothesay and Cambridge, eventually Prince of Wales, will be Regent.

And I have not heard any serious talk about replacing God Save The King as a national Anthem for the entire UK. Maybe Jerusalem as Anthem for England (it already happens at some sports events).

 

[Claire]

My wording was incorrect there afraid - it will not be a joint monarchy. Just that William will have some of the duties that the Queen currently has. Charles will not take on all of the Queen's work - it will be shared with Charles and William.
Duties - not crown

Afraid one of the biggest issues will be the anthem and oath. Both of which will be altered. I expect that the anthem will be the biggest issue - but it will be brought to the fore.

 

[RandyDrx]

Regarding anthems, I've seen many people online who prefers "I Vow to Thee, My Country" over "God Save the Queen" simply because IVTTMC is about one's devotion to one's country and patriotism as opposed to GSTQ which centered on a very privileged individual who got into her position simply because she was born lucky. I can imagine many people, especially republicans choosing IVTTMC over GSTQ if given a choice.

 

[Durham]

My wording was incorrect there afraid - it will not be a joint monarchy. Just that William will have some of the duties that the Queen currently has. Charles will not take on all of the Queen's work - it will be shared with Charles and William.
Duties - not crown

Afraid one of the biggest issues will be the anthem and oath. Both of which will be altered. I expect that the anthem will be the biggest issue - but it will be brought to the fore.

I agree that the heir apparent in the next reign will have a major role. Things that have been done solely by The Queen can undoubtedly be shared. The exception of course will be those essential constitutional duties that can only be carried out by the monarch. But these are relatively few in number.

I don't understand the issue about the national anthem. King & him are the only changes required. There's no movement for a new national anthem at all.

 

[Mbruno]

Regarding anthems, I've seen many people online who prefers "I Vow to Thee, My Country" over "God Save the Queen" simply because IVTTMC is about one's devotion to one's country and patriotism as opposed to GSTQ which centered on a very privileged individual who got into her position simply because she was born lucky. I can imagine many people, especially republicans choosing IVTTMC over GSTQ if given a choice.

As I said, what many monarchies do (e.g. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Commonwealth realms like Australia, Canada and New Zealand) is to have a national anthen and a royal anthem. In the Scandinavian countries, for example, the royal anthem is played in events like state dinners, jubilees and royal birthdays, the Nobel ceremonies, etc. whereas in "national events" like national day, opening of Parliament, or sports events, the national anthem is played. It is a reasonable solution, but the problem remains to find a national anthem that represents the UK as a whole. I guess IVTTMC could be an option.

 

[Durham]

Regarding anthems, I've seen many people online who prefers "I Vow to Thee, My Country" over "God Save the Queen" simply because IVTTMC is about one's devotion to one's country and patriotism as opposed to GSTQ which centered on a very privileged individual who got into her position simply because she was born lucky. I can imagine many people, especially republicans choosing IVTTMC over GSTQ if given a choice.

IVTTMC has always struck me as a very English song rather than a British one but yes there will be some who might want it as a new anthem.

Queen in GSTQ is really a metaphor for Britain. The monarch is the living embodiment of the crown & the crown is us, the British people. So it's really about saving us all & not just one of us.

 

[RandyDrx]

IVTTMC has always struck me as a very English song rather than a British one but yes there will be some who might want it as a new anthem.

Queen in GSTQ is really a metaphor for Britain. The monarch is the living embodiment of the crown & the crown is us, the British people. So it's really about saving us all & not just one of us.

Exactly, I think having IVTTMC as the national anthem of England would make more sense than Jerusalem.

 

[Somebody]

9

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.

Of course your friends can speculate but I don't trust their speculations over others.

Regarding 1: that would be a terrible move by Charles effectively declaring his reign completely irrelevant from the start.
Would you also say that the queen and prince of Wales currently reign jointly as Charles has taken up many of the tasks the queen previously carried out?

Regarding 2: Little speculation there. The Duke of Kent indicated this himself. And yes, we don't know yet what the Gloucesters will do. Their workload is already limited. No predictions about Alexandra?!

Regarding 3: Not even sure what this means. Isn't it the Sovereign who runs the court and not his/her spouse? It can turn very badly if it is done the other way around as we've seen in Luxembourg. Verdict on Camilla's title is still out but so far she will be queen the moment Charles becomes king.

Regarding 4: Downgrading of Andrew would make more sense than upgrading Anne but not entirely impossible.

Regarding 5: No clue how this is related to Charles ascending the throne.

Regarding 6: While not entirely impossible that Edward won't receive a Dukedom it would be a petty move on Charles' part. And offering him a different Dukedom makes no sense at all (because if he is to be made a duke why not the one he was promised?). The queen already provided him with an additional Scottish earldom.
And what 'position' will Edward be the last one to occupy? That of youngest son/sibling to the monarch? I can assure you that Louis will follow in his footsteps. And why all these hits to Edward (no promised title, lower in order of precedence, turn into 'minor royal') and elevation of his sister? It seems your friends think Charles really dislikes his brother.

Regarding 7: Harry has not left the line of succession, so there is nothing to return to.

 

[Durham]

Exactly, I think having IVTTMC as the national anthem of England would make more sense than Jerusalem.

Both are lovely songs but I'd give the edge (just!) to Jerusalem.

But that's personal taste of course & if IVTTMC became England's national anthem tomorrow I'd be be delighted.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Regarding 3: Not even sure what this means. Isn't it the Sovereign who runs the court and not his/her spouse? It can turn very badly if it is done the other way around as we've seen in Luxembourg. Verdict on Camilla's title is still out but so far she will be queen the moment Charles becomes king.

Officially, the Prince of Wales's press office continues to state in response to inquiries from the press that his wife will be (known as) Princess Consort in the next reign. (They have never denied that she will technically have the legal status of Queen, just as she is legally the Princess of Wales.)

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).

See here for reply: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/order-of-precedence-6536-60.html#post2437226

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Officially, the Prince of Wales's press office continues to state in response to inquiries from the press that his wife will be (known as) Princess Consort in the next reign. (They have never denied that she will technically have the legal status of Queen, just as she is legally the Princess of Wales.)




See here for reply: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/order-of-precedence-6536-60.html#post2437226

I thought it was the intention that the Duchess of Cornwall would become The Princess-Consort. But an intention is not chiseled in granite, it is just a publicly uttered option.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But an intention is not chiseled in granite,

That is true of every press release or answer to a reporter's question.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I'm curious about why some people think that Charles will not make Edward the Duke of Edinburough. I find it hard to believe the Queen (and Prince Philip) did not consult Charles before she made the promise. She couldn't force Charles so he must have promised her he would do it. Unless Edward doesn't want the title, it would be a public relations nightmare. It's hard to believe that Charles would publicly repudiate a promise to his much loved, popular, mother and father.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I'm curious about why some people think that Charles will not make Edward the Duke of Edinburough. I find it hard to believe the Queen (and Prince Philip) did not consult Charles before she made the promise. She couldn't force Charles so he must have promised her he would do it. Unless Edward doesn't want the title, it would be a public relations nightmare. It's hard to believe that Charles would publicly repudiate a promise to his much loved, popular, mother and father.

It is just a misunderstanding by poorly informed media. Charles would "snub" his brother because he "denied" him the title Duke of Edinburgh when Prince Philip passed away.

But he simply could not do anything as he is the heir, the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh. And after him William would become the 3rd Duke. It was completely misunderstood that the Dukedom has to revert to the Crown first, to become available for a new creation.

And of course, it is all into the King's own will and pleasure, in his discretion, eventually to grant a Dukedom of Edinburgh to the Earl of Wessex and Forfar. By leaving it open, it is respecting the freedom any Sovereign has to make his/her own considerations and decisions.

This is framed as Edward will NOT be Duke of Edinburgh but it is waaaaay too premature to say anything about it.

 

[irish_royalist]

I have a feeling that very little will change during Charles' reign. World population will be so shocked by the death of The Queen, that they will seek continuity. Charles will be King, and Camilla will be Queen or Princess Consort, I'm not really sure which yet, and it doesn't really matter. Reliable family members will only be axed by death or by mutual agreement of retirement.
Significant changes will come after Charles' reign which by definition will be much shorter.

 

[Osipi]

This is how I see it too, Irish_royalist. After an iconic reign by Queen Elizabeth II that has been such a long reign that the majority of people on this planet cannot remember any other that Charles isn't going to want to make a bazillion changes to things right from the get go. There'll be some changes he wants to implement but not to the point that the monarchy with its traditions and ways of doing things seemingly feel like a whole new ball game.

With William's reign, enough time will have passed between the second Elizabethan era and the reign of William V that changes will be seen as steps forward. Charles' reign however, looked back on 50 years from now, will be seeing as a transitional reign between an old, perhaps anachronistic way of doing things to a more modern way.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Susan D]

I hope Prince Charles pulls out of being the "monarch" of the Commonwealth countries and that each independent country becomes a real republic.

 

[Osipi]

I hope Prince Charles pulls out of being the "monarch" of the Commonwealth countries and that each independent country becomes a real republic.

That, I can assure you, isn't going to happen. For one, the Head of the Commonwealth is not a "monarch" of the Commonwealth of Nations. In 2018, all 53 leaders of their respective countries all assented that Charles would succeed his mother as the Head of the Commonwealth of Nations.

There are many countries in the Commonwealth of Nations that are true blue republic nations that *choose* to belong to the Commonwealth and there are going to be more that go that route with Barbados being the most resent one. It will not affect the Commonwealth as an entity. ?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43840710

 

[Mbruno]

I hope Prince Charles pulls out of being the "monarch" of the Commonwealth countries and that each independent country becomes a real republic.

It is not up to Charles to "pull out" of being monarch of the Commonwealth realms. Intstead, it is up to each realm to replace him with an elected Head of State (following their own constitutional rules) if they want to, as dozens of realms did in the past (India, Pakistan ,South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, etc., most recently Barbados).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I'm curious about why some people think that Charles will not make Edward the Duke of Edinburough. I find it hard to believe the Queen (and Prince Philip) did not consult Charles before she made the promise. She couldn't force Charles so he must have promised her he would do it. Unless Edward doesn't want the title, it would be a public relations nightmare. It's hard to believe that Charles would publicly repudiate a promise to his much loved, popular, mother and father.

It was discussed in depth here (and my suggestion is to continue discussion of the dukedom in that thread):

Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles

The bottom line was that royal reporter Roya Nikkhah of The Times published statements from unnamed sources alleging that the Prince of Wales was "reassessing", or possibly even had already decided to set aside, the agreement on the future of the Duke of Edinburgh title which was announced in 1999. A spokesperson for the Prince of Wales described the story as speculation without denying its veracity, and stated that "no final decisions have been taken", which seemed to affirm that the agreement is not a done deal.

It is just a misunderstanding by poorly informed media. Charles would "snub" his brother because he "denied" him the title Duke of Edinburgh when Prince Philip passed away.

But he simply could not do anything as he is the heir, the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh. And after him William would become the 3rd Duke. It was completely misunderstood that the Dukedom has to revert to the Crown first, to become available for a new creation.

I have never encountered that misunderstanding in media reports. From poorly informed royal watchers, yes, but not from reporters.

 

[Durham]

Canada, Australia & NZ becoming republics, if that's what comes to pass, will be sad in a way that the other countries mentioned never was. The ties with those lands are based on kinship. The ancestors of many millions in those lands lie sleeping in a thousand British graveyards. The four nations being in personal union is symbolic of that.

 

[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).

The Danish monarchy would be a good fit for Scotland since the next Danish king is half Scottish. They could even choose his sister Isabella. As her name means Elizabeth, she would be Elizabeth II.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I hope Prince Charles pulls out of being the "monarch" of the Commonwealth countries and that each independent country becomes a real republic.

That isn't a decision for Charles but for the people of those countries.

In Australia it would take a full referendum and they are very hard to get passed down under. 8 have passed since 1901 since it takes a 'double majority' i.e. a majority of the voting population AND 4 out of 6 states. As the Australian Republican Movement can't agree on the type of republic that should be offered to the Australian people any such referendum will fail, as it did in 1999, until the model on offer and not just the concept are supported by 50%+1 of the voting population and 4 out of 6 states.

Canada it is even harder I believe but I will leave that to a Canadian to explain.

Australia is a fully independent nation by the way, and to suggest otherwise shows a lack of understanding of the term 'independent', especially in a constitutional monarchy. We just like sharing our Head of State with 14 other countries.

What I don't like with the say Barbados went about things is that the vote was never put to the people directly but the government decided. The people may very well support the idea but they weren't specifically asked in a referendum.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

It was discussed in depth here (and my suggestion is to continue discussion of the dukedom in that thread):

Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles

The bottom line was that royal reporter Roya Nikkhah of The Times published statements from unnamed sources alleging that the Prince of Wales was "reassessing", or possibly even had already decided to set aside, the agreement on the future of the Duke of Edinburgh title which was announced in 1999. A spokesperson for the Prince of Wales described the story as speculation without denying its veracity, and stated that "no final decisions have been taken", which seemed to affirm that the agreement is not a done deal.


...

Thanks. Perhaps I am mistaken but I am not sure that Charles has ever announced his intention to do anything when he becomes King. I think that is out of respect for the Queen. It would look like Charles was overeager if he were to announce that he will make Edward the Duke of Edinburgh while the Queen is still alive.

On the other hand, there may be some political considerations associated with making anyone the "Duke of Edinburgh." If that is the case, I'm sure that Edward would be disappointed but would understand.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I hope you will not mind my moving my reply to the original thread.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...d-royal-ducal-titles-7948-40.html#post2437355

The announcement in 1999 (see third link in post above) stated: "The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales have also agreed that The Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown."

In my opinion, announcing the Prince's "agreement" by definition announces his intention, and as the announcement was issued in the Queen's name, I do not think it would have been interpreted as disrespectful to her.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

I will preface this by saying that I'm an American looking from the outside in, so I don't know a lot about the intricacies of the British Royal Family. From personal observations, however, it seems as though a lot of the strength of the BRF comes from how beloved HM The Queen is. HRH The Prince of Wales is respected for how hard he works for the BRF, being its most consistent worker for the past several years along with HRH The Princess Royal. For different reasons, however, he has never been as popular as his mother or his heir.

Given that, I suspect that when HRH The Prince of Wales becomes King, he will do all of the same duties that HM The Queen does, but in a less public manner. I think that the BRF will push HRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge as the face of the BRF when they become The Prince and Princess of Wales due to their popularity.

From my observation, the British Royal Family is less about supporting any of its individual members and more about supporting the dignity and steadfastness of the institution in its duty to the British people and its Commonwealth citizens. HRH The Prince of Wales has shown himself to care about this as much as his mother does. If, for some reason, the public loses permanent faith in the institution due to his reign, HRH The Prince of Wales will do what he must to protect the institution, even if it means letting others be the institution's public face.

Of course, public opinion always changes. HRH The Prince of Wales could grow to be just as beloved as HM The Queen, and the BRF runs as smoothly as usual.

 

[Lord_Royal]

That isn't a decision for Charles but for the people of those countries.

In Australia it would take a full referendum and they are very hard to get passed down under. 8 have passed since 1901 since it takes a 'double majority' i.e. a majority of the voting population AND 4 out of 6 states. As the Australian Republican Movement can't agree on the type of republic that should be offered to the Australian people any such referendum will fail, as it did in 1999, until the model on offer and not just the concept are supported by 50%+1 of the voting population and 4 out of 6 states.

Canada it is even harder I believe but I will leave that to a Canadian to explain.

Australia is a fully independent nation by the way, and to suggest otherwise shows a lack of understanding of the term 'independent', especially in a constitutional monarchy. We just like sharing our Head of State with 14 other countries.

What I don't like with the say Barbados went about things is that the vote was never put to the people directly but the government decided. The people may very well support the idea but they weren't specifically asked in a referendum.

In order for Canada to remove the monarchy and become a republic, it would require amending the Constitution and requires the consent of every province and territory. For detailed reasons I won't go into here, it is a near impossibility to occur.

When the Constitution Act 1982 was passed into law (by HM The Queen in person) the monarchy was woven into the constitution of the country in a way that would make it a political catastrophe to remove and Republicanism in Canada does not have strong support.

 

[Curryong]

According to this March 2021 poll of Canadian citizens that is not so.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/lifestyle/ca...onarchy-reaches-historic-level-poll-1.5330650

TORONTO -- A new poll has found that the desire among Canadians to drop the monarchy is at the highest level recorded in the past 12 years.
The poll, conducted by Research Co., found that 45 per cent of Canadians surveyed said they would prefer to have an elected head of state instead of the Queen, when considering Canada's constitution.
In a press release issued Monday, Research Co. noted that this preference is at a "historic level," up 13 points compared to a similar poll conducted by the firm in February 2020.

The poll also noted that only 22 per cent of participants want to see Prince Charles, the first in line for the throne, become King after the Queen dies or abdicates, while 35 per cent said they would rather see Prince William ascend to the throne.
Among those Canadians who said they would like the monarchy to continue, 47 per cent reported that they would prefer Prince William as the future King to Prince Charles (39 per cent).

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It was discussed in depth here (and my suggestion is to continue discussion of the dukedom in that thread):

Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles

The bottom line was that royal reporter Roya Nikkhah of The Times published statements from unnamed sources alleging that the Prince of Wales was "reassessing", or possibly even had already decided to set aside, the agreement on the future of the Duke of Edinburgh title which was announced in 1999. A spokesperson for the Prince of Wales described the story as speculation without denying its veracity, and stated that "no final decisions have been taken", which seemed to affirm that the agreement is not a done deal.




I have never encountered that misunderstanding in media reports. From poorly informed royal watchers, yes, but not from reporters.

It is purely a diplomatic move to maintain the idea that the Sovereign is the Fons Honorum and and decides so: one can not publicly fasten the Sovereign's free hand with a tie wrap: Thou Shalt Create Edward Duke of Edinburgh! That is simply "not done".

It is the same as (in most monarchies) with appointments in high offices of state. Officially it is "into His Majesty's gracious consideration to grant His royal assent". He will always grant his assent, but that is the theatre we all play.


It is almost for sure Charles will create the Earl of Wessex and Forfar as a new Duke of Edinburgh, but the present Queen can nog reign beyond her grave and the future King can not make decisions in the present Reign. As long as he is not King, anything has a marge for "consideration".

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As I've replied to US Royal Watcher in the Royal Duchies thread, I will add to my reply there.