The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[rob2008]

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).

On one hand it seems strange to have a head of state who lives and works 4000 to 7000km away (Canada is 3k wide). But on the other hand, very few people see and interact with their HoS. It is always a distant and invisible figure. At least the monarch's image or the crown logo is on all the currency and in every place throughout the country. It is a level of saturation that no democratic HoS can reach.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Catherine and William 'Excel' at modernizing

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

On one hand it seems strange to have a head of state who lives and works 4000 to 7000km away (Canada is 3k wide). But on the other hand, very few people see and interact with their HoS. It is always a distant and invisible figure. At least the monarch's image or the crown logo is on all the currency and in every place throughout the country. It is a level of saturation that no democratic HoS can reach.

Currency is fast disappearing because of electronic payment, post stamps are fast disappearing because we write no letters anymore and parcels come with barcode stamps, except we come less and less in post offices, municipalities, police stations because the state services are accessible via an app on our phones.

I speak from my own experience but I can not imagine that in Canada and Australia, highly developed and technologized countries, this is different. No matter who is the Sovereign, there is no future for coins, banknotes, post stamps and digitalisation will bring state services to your (phone), so going to a stately building and seeing a portrait of the Sovereign in a marble hall will become rare too.

 

[TLLK]

YouGov UK releases its fourth quarter poll for the year regarding the popularity of the members of the BRF. The Prince of Wales has seen the greatest improvement since the last poll in August 2021. Click on the link to access the full polling results and the historical data going back to 2012 to the present. BRF members included QEII, PoW, Duchess of Cornwall, the Cambridges, the Sussexes, Princess Royal, DoY and EoW.


https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...icle&utm_campaign=royal_favourability_ratings

Positive opinion of Prince Charles rose by six points over the last three months, according to new YouGov royal favourability data, from 54% at the end of August to 60% now. The Prince of Wales has seen the largest increase in favourability among the Royal Family over that period.
The Prince of Wales’s popularity is higher among older Brits. While the same percentage of 18 to 24-year-olds have a positive opinion of Charles as have a negative one (43%), 73% of those aged 65 and over see the Prince in a positive light vs 31% a negative one.
Prince Charles’s wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, has not seen the same rise in popularity as her husband. Positive opinion of her was at 43% in August, compared with 45% now, while 42% have a negative opinion of her.
Prince Harry’s favourability has been dropping steadily over the past two years, taking a 9 point hit from April to August. But our latest survey shows opinion of the Duke of Sussex is starting to recover – it’s up five points and now stands at 39%. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, has not seen her favourability improve over the same period – 27% of the British public have a favourable opinion of her, compared with 26% in August.

I don't understand why YouGov UK continues to include the Sussexes in these polls as they stepped back from senior royal duties in 2020. I'd personally rather see the Countess of Wessex included.

 

[Alison H]

I never know how much notice to take of these polls, but I don't understand why people still have a negative opinion of Camilla. She hasn't put a foot wrong since she married Charles, and she works very hard on behalf of a number of good causes. Charles and Diana's marriage would have broken down even without her, and, anyway, it all happened over 30 years ago. It must be so demoralising for the poor woman that people still react negatively to her. Have they all led such blameless lives themselves?!


Good to see such positive results for William and Catherine, though.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I never know how much notice to take of these polls, but I don't understand why people still have a negative opinion of Camilla. She hasn't out a foot wrong since she married Charles, and she works very hard on behalf of a number of good causes. Charles and Diana's marriage would have broken down even without her, and, anyway, it all happened over 30 years ago. It must be so demoralising for the poor woman that people still react negatively to her. Have they all led such blameless lives themselves?!


Good to see such positive results for William and Catherine, though.

Seen her portrayal in the worldwide blockbuster Netflix series The Crown?

And you know: "They showed it in Netflix, so it must be true. Isn't it an acclaimed series?"

 

[Denville]

I never know how much notice to take of these polls, but I don't understand why people still have a negative opinion of Camilla. She hasn't out a foot wrong since she married Charles, and she works very hard on behalf of a number of good causes. Charles and Diana's marriage would have broken down even without her, and, anyway, it all happened over 30 years ago. It must be so demoralising for the poor woman that people still react negatively to her. Have they all led such blameless lives themselves?!


Good to see such positive results for William and Catherine, though.

well the world seems to be full of people who have never known anynone who was divorced..

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think that they might be thinking of flexible hours so to speak.... whether she becomes HRH or not.. she could take on some patronages on a part time basis while at Uni, and later, poss when she marries or has a career, she can slip back to not working for the family. I think that with the sudden loss of some people and others getting older, now, the RF may be thinking of "part time helpers" provided it is clear that its on an "as needed for a few years" basis rather than a young royal becoming a full time worker for life as has tended to be the case.

In the event that Queen Elizabeth II or the future King Charles thinks of taking on another part-time working royal for a few years (which I view as unlikely), the more logical choice would be to request Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Prince Michael, or Princess Michael. They are already princes(ses), are higher in the order of succession in the case of the Yorks, have completed their education, and have worked with charitable patronages for many years alongside their careers.

 

[Prinsara]

No one is making the Michaels full-time. They are both seniors and court way too much controversy. It would be an utterly illogical choice.

Beatrice and Eugenie are a different story, but it likely depends on whether they'd want to, as well as whatever the outcome is with their father, unfortunately.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

No one is making the Michaels full-time. They are both seniors [...]

I think you have misread Denville's and my posts. Denville suggested that the royal family may be thinking of adding working royals on a part-time basis rather than full time, and only for a few years, not for a generation or a lifetime.

I stated I believed that was unlikely, but if it were to happen then the four adult princes(ses) who are currently not official working royals would be adequate.

 

[Prinsara]

No, I don't believe I misread anything. The idea of making the Michaels official working royals in any capacity is ridiculous and will never happen. Louise would easily be preferable.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

No, I don't believe I misread anything.

I see. In that case I am confused as to whom you were addressing when you wrote "no one is making the Michaels full-time" and "They are both seniors". Neither I nor Denville suggested making the Michaels, or even Louise, "full-time".

 

[Mbruno]

No, I don't believe I misread anything. The idea of making the Michaels official working royals in any capacity is ridiculous and will never happen. Louise would easily be preferable.

But she wouldn't necessarily be preferable to Beatrice and Eugenie. Louise is still a teenager anyway and would not start taking up official royal work until she was in her late 20s and done with her studies. Beatrice and Eugenie are ready to serve now if needed in an official capacity and actually they already have a few patronages. They seem to me the logical choices in the short term if anyone else needs to be brought into the fold. Moreover, if Charles becomes King within the next 13 years (i.e before George turns 21), Beatrice , and possibly Eugenie depending on Harry's and Andrew's availability, are still in a position to become Counsellors of State, which makes them much more senior than Louise.

TBH, I don't expect Louise to become a working royal (ever), but my point was that the issue of whether she should hold a title of princess or not should not be linked to her working status within the family as there is no "work requirement" attached to the current rules for royal titles and styles in the UK. Instead they are based solely on proximity of blood to a British sovereign (in fact, any British sovereign) and also on a gender-related criterion (i.e. whether they descend from a sovereign in paternal or maternal line).

 

[Denis Poore]

If UK devolved the monarchy, it would be an economic disaster.

From Brand Finance:

“Valued at £67 Billion, the Monarchy is Britain’s Greatest Treasure
 Brand Finance estimates the capital value of the UK Monarchy as a business at £67.5bn
 Monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy in 2017 is £1.766bn
 Annual cost per head is less than £4.50 a year, equal to just over 1p a day”

 

[Claire]

Anti Monarchist would simply look at France and Germany, you can include Russia and most of Eastern Europe to this list now - that make a large amount of tourist money on their monarchy and it hasn't been there for a hundred years or more.

 

[Ista]

A number of off topic posts have been removed. Let's stick to the thread topic, which is the Future of the British Monarchy. Any side discussions should closely relate to that topic.

 

[Excalibur]

... there is no "work requirement" attached to the current rules for royal titles and styles in the UK. Instead they are based solely on proximity of blood to a British sovereign (in fact, any British sovereign) and also on a gender-related criterion (i.e. whether they descend from a sovereign in paternal or maternal line).

But to the average British taxpayer, there is a work requirement, at least in their perception of the funding of the monarchy. In the days of the Civil List, their taxes were footing the bill for those who held an HRH or Prince/Princess title. The uproar in the 90s, which led to the decision regarding the titles of the Wessex children, stemmed from the public not wanting to pay for "all these royals who weren't doing anything". Even after the implementing of the Sovereign Grant, there is a definite vibe for wanting the royals to "earn their keep". So IF Louise were to choose to claim her Princess title, the public would definitely demand that she join The Firm and become a working royal.

JMHO

 

[Prinsara]

Louise doesn't have to do anything the public demands, because it's none of their business.

However since she seems like an intelligent and sensible young woman, why would she take the title and not intend to do at least something for the Firm? There's really no point in it, otherwise.

 

[Denville]

But to the average British taxpayer, there is a work requirement, at least in their perception of the funding of the monarchy. In the days of the Civil List, their taxes were footing the bill for those who held an HRH or Prince/Princess title. The uproar in the 90s, which led to the decision regarding the titles of the Wessex children, stemmed from the public not wanting to pay for "all these royals who weren't doing anything". Even after the implementing of the Sovereign Grant, there is a definite vibe for wanting the royals to "earn their keep". So IF Louise were to choose to claim her Princess title, the public would definitely demand that she join The Firm and become a working royal.

JMHO

If she were to join the working ranks of the RF, and do duties, there would be no extra cost per se. She would get help from the Sov Grant for her expenses.... She would get security but only probably when she was on an engagement. This would be the same whether she did the job permanently or on a temp basis or whether she did it as Prss Louise or Lady L

 

[Denville]

Louise doesn't have to do anything the public demands, because it's none of their business.

However since she seems like an intelligent and sensible young woman, why would she take the title and not intend to do at least something for the Firm? There's really no point in it, otherwise.

well if she DOES want to be titled Princess, I think the public would wonder why, since her parents thought she was fine as Lady Louise. I dont know why Sophie mentioned the whole business of the children having the option to become HRHs.. why bring it up unless they were considering it? Why did the Palace say some years ago that they were "just" Viscount and Lady Louise, if they were "really" HRHs. I think that Charles is probalby sitll trying to figure out how to cover the programme of royal work, and it would be better NOT to have people in the RF making remarks like that.

 

[Iluvbertie]

But to the average British taxpayer, there is a work requirement, at least in their perception of the funding of the monarchy. In the days of the Civil List, their taxes were footing the bill for those who held an HRH or Prince/Princess title. The uproar in the 90s, which led to the decision regarding the titles of the Wessex children, stemmed from the public not wanting to pay for "all these royals who weren't doing anything". Even after the implementing of the Sovereign Grant, there is a definite vibe for wanting the royals to "earn their keep". So IF Louise were to choose to claim her Princess title, the public would definitely demand that she join The Firm and become a working royal.

JMHO

The taxpayers have never funded the monarchy.

The Civil List was the payment made from the Crown Estates to the royals while the rest went to the government.

The Sovereign Grant Act simply quantified that percentage as a set figure and consolidated all the payments from the Crown Estate to the monarch for all sorts of things including the maintenance of the palaces, which used to be paid for separately and run by a different set up.

 

[MARG]

That is correct. So many people expound at length about what they expect for their money, all £1.24 per head. Interestingly, most of that money is spent on prosaic things such as a continual menu repair and (mostly) restoration of royal palaces, etc. One reason that this costs so much is that there was a time where TPTB did not cover "restore", think "Kensington Palace Apartment 1A" after Princess Margaret moved out. It was left to moulder as a storage place. for all sorts of things, worse, Frogmore Cottage with its unique royal history being chopped up into five apartments for staff. Interestingly, they never had a full house because it was too far from the village to be easily accessed.

However, your £1.24 does subsidise 'Soft Diplomacy which does not come cheap with the BRF accommodating the needs of the government in the form of entertaining foreign Heads of State whether they be royal or political. All that pomp and ceremony does not come cheap and there are even times they are "encouraged" to bling to the nth degree (tastefully of course) to knock their socks off.

Overseas tours are another expensive undertaking and needless to say, they are at the behest of the current government for whatever reason we will never know. Sometimes you see members of the BRF are suddenly "on tour" and it seems to come out of nowhere nevertheless they do it all with a smile and welcome friends, allies, politically expedient allies and some very nasty but very refined international VIP's. They don't have to like them but they grit their teeth and do what is required and it all costs Money!

 

[Claire]

One argument I have never understood about republicanism is that they don't want so much land and national treasures owned by the Sovereign. And even if it people point out it is actually owned by the estate - they note it is just another word for the same thing.
But here is the problem - if the land, castles, estates and paintings were not owned by the monarchy who would own them. The people - nope. The government - yes - until they sell them off. Which is what has happened in most countries. So who owns the land of most of countries and their treasures - rich foreigners. So normally my biggest argument against republicanism is do you want Windsor Castle to be owned by a Russian Billionaires - how about Amazon Buckingham Palace or the Great Tesla Park.

 

[Mbruno]

One argument I have never understood about republicanism is that they don't want so much land and national treasures owned by the Sovereign. And even if it people point out it is actually owned by the estate - they note it is just another word for the same thing.
But here is the problem - if the land, castles, estates and paintings were not owned by the monarchy who would own them. The people - nope. The government - yes - until they sell them off. Which is what has happened in most countries. So who owns the land of most of countries and their treasures - rich foreigners. So normally my biggest argument against republicanism is do you want Windsor Castle to be owned by a Russian Billionaires - how about Amazon Buckingham Palace or the Great Tesla Park.

I doubt the State would ever sell Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle, or paintings in the Royal Collection for that matter. It didn't happen with their counterparts for example in Austria or in France, so why would it happen in Britain?

On the issue of ownership of the Crown Estate, The Queen in right of the United Kingdom and the British State are in practice the same. In fact, as a relic of medieval times, there is technically no such thing as a British State. The Sovereign owns all State assets as a corporation sole as far as I understand. That is not the case in more modern monarchies (e.g. Belgium, Sweden, or post-1978 Spain) where the State as a corporation has been legally separated from the monarch as a person and sovereignty has been constitutionally transferred to the people (the monarch being now only a hereditary Head of State who serves for life or until abdication and retains certain powers and privileges under the constitution).

EDIT: Surprisingly, the legal status of State ownership in the UK also applies to Canada. In other words, The Queen in right of Canada owns for example the Canadian embassy in Washington, or all federal public buildings or federal land in Canada; public land managed, let's say, by the government of the province of Ontario is owned by The Queen in right of Ontario, and similarly for all other provinces.

 

[Excalibur]

The taxpayers have never funded the monarchy.

The Civil List was the payment made from the Crown Estates to the royals while the rest went to the government.

The Sovereign Grant Act simply quantified that percentage as a set figure and consolidated all the payments from the Crown Estate to the monarch for all sorts of things including the maintenance of the palaces, which used to be paid for separately and run by a different set up.

I know that and you know that, but I think the average "Brit on the street" believes their taxes do pay for the monarchy. The continuing verbiage about how much the monarchy costs per citizen seems to imply that the taxpayer does fund it. So a very common misconception.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The citizens are paying for it, the left or to the right. Revenues of State assets (means: assets belonging to all Britons) are not used for the NHS, senior care or education but for the upkeep of the monarchy and that prize tag (palaces, security, military ceremonial, transportation, etc.) is huge.

That does not mean the monarchy is not worth it, but it can not be stated the Britons do not pay for the monarchy because it is funded by estates.

Let me illustriate it as: the Bank of England weekly gives two bars of gold, to cover the costs of the monarchy. "See, the taxpayers pay nothing, the monarchy is for free".

No, that is not true. It means every year 104 bars of gold form the Bank of England, which is of all Britons, is "consumed". So it always are the citizens paying for it, even not realizing it at all.

 

[victor1319]

The citizens are paying for it, the left or to the right. Revenues of State assets ...

Sorry, but this sounds communist to me! Of course can be asked, if the vast land ownerships, which in England and Scotland often go back to the Norman Conquest, are legit - but for today's legal situation they are! All the lordships are and with them the seats in the House of Lords and so is the Monarchy. It is an English tradition and their history there is more evolutionary and less revolutionary.

If the "Britons" want to have the property, they better pay up! Same for the Royal coastal areas etc.

In fact the "Britons" were quite the grabbers already, when it comes to Royal property...


(Edited)

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Sorry, but this sounds communist to me! Of course can be asked, if the vast land ownerships, which in England and Scotland often go back to the Norman Conquest, are legit - but for today's legal situation they are! All the lordships are and with them the seats in the House of Lords and so is the Monarchy. It is an English tradition and their history there is more evolutionary and less revolutionary.

If the "Britons" want to have the property, they better pay up! Same for the Royal coastal areas etc.

In fact the "Britons" were quite the grabbers already, when it comes to Royal property...


(Edited)

What in other countries would be seen as State Properties but given in usufruct to the head of state is in the UK ambiguously named as "holding to the British monarch".

In effect these Crown Estates are managed by officials appointed by the Government, the revenues go to the Treasury "for the benefit of the British Nation" and these public bodies are accountable to Parliament.

It means that annually some 400 million Pounds of net revenue is directed to the Treasury. Then the Treasurey allocates a quarter, some 100 million Pounds to the monarchy. Give the animal a name, but it is 100 million Pound "from the British Nation" as a foundation for the finances of the monarchy.

I think the Britons are lucky to have the Crown Estates because it optically makes the monarchy like a "bargain". Of course it is not, but this ambiguity comes handy for selective calculations to show how wonderfully cheap the Britons get the world's greatest monarchy. (In reality fairytales do not exist, pounds do not grow on trees and indeed every public penny spent is ultimately coming from the Britons.)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

You make a good point, which is why claims that the British monarchy is cheaper than others should be approached with caution.

But to the average British taxpayer, there is a work requirement, at least in their perception of the funding of the monarchy. In the days of the Civil List, their taxes were footing the bill for those who held an HRH or Prince/Princess title. The uproar in the 90s, which led to the decision regarding the titles of the Wessex children, stemmed from the public not wanting to pay for "all these royals who weren't doing anything". Even after the implementing of the Sovereign Grant, there is a definite vibe for wanting the royals to "earn their keep". So IF Louise were to choose to claim her Princess title, the public would definitely demand that she join The Firm and become a working royal.

JMHO

Louise doesn't have to do anything the public demands, because it's none of their business.

It is true that as a matter of law, the public has no rights to require titled royals to "earn their keep", but I think there is a legitimate public interest in these matters. My preference would be for the distribution of funding, working status, and titles in royal families to be governed by the democratically accountable Parliament, as in Japan or the Netherlands, instead of the unelected monarch.

 

[Leopoldine]

This article in the Telegraph is wonderful. It's about the cohesiveness of the three official Royal Households, and some favorable views on how they complement each other. I'm sorry I don't know that archive link for Telegraph non-members.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...abeth-prince-william-kate-cambridges-charles/