The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Roslyn]

Australia now has a majority Labor government. Our new Prime Minister might have stepped back from the previous Labor leader's promise of a referendum on the republic, but he has appointed an Assistant Minister for the Republic. Precisely what this Assistant Minister will do in respect of an Australian Republic remains to be seen as it is very early days, but the issue has definitely been identified as an important one. I suspect that once the current monarch's reign is over, the referendum will be restored to priority.

The fact the 1999 referendum was lost can be attributed to a number of factors, and the republican movement learnt a lot from that experience. We now have a very well organised Australian Republic Movement which has published a preferred model called the Australian Choice Model which proposes a president whose role is ceremonial in nature. The Model provides for each state and territory parliament to nominate one candidate for election to be our Head of State and for the Federal Parliament to nominate up to three candidates. The 1999 experience showed that Australians want a say in who is their head of state and the Model proposes there will then be a national election for Australians to decide which candidate should be Head of State: "A vote for all of us" to elect an Australian head of state.

The Australia Choice Model is not without its critics but between now and the time of the inevitable referendum there will be much discussion and the problems with lack of information and confusion that arose last time will not happen this time round. About a quarter of a century will have passed since the last referendum. Our population has changed and a change in monarch will occur in the not too distant future. I expect a different result in the next referendum. We will remain in the Commonwealth, but as a republic with an Australian head of state.

 

[tommy100]

Interesting update Roslyn, I didn't know the new government had appointed a minister for the republic. It makes it seem rather inevitable that a vote will be had if nothing else. Thank you!

I had heard that even HM commented after the last referendum that Australia hadn't really voted to keep her, but had just not been able to agree on the model to replace her with.

 

[Curryong]

I agree with all of Roslyn’s points regarding a future Australian republic. I believe a referendum will be held not too far into Charles’s reign and I also expect the answer to be Yes to a republic.

There is still a good deal of respect and admiration for the Queen here in Australia. The population in my opinion does not hold Charles in the same esteem and once the Queen passes I believe there will be a new enthusiasm for a republic. The Australian Constitution has considerable checks and balances that in several ways do not aid measures to change it. However these obstacles are by no means insurmountable.


I’m by no means speaking for my Kiwi friends in this part of the world but in my opinion once the Queen dies then NZ will move in the same direction as Australia. Both IMO will remain in the Commonwealth but certainly not as realms.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

Another Aussie that agrees with Roslyn. The question is not 'if", but "when" for a referendum after Charles ascends the throne. I believe will will stay in the Commonwealth, but as a republic.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Very interesting points raised on an Australian Republic and the Commonwealth membership.

 

[Blog Real]

And what about Canada? Does anyone know if they also have plans to be a republic?

I will be sorry if these countries become republics and leave the Commonwealth.

 

[Somebody]

And what about Canada? Does anyone know if they also have plans to be a republic?

I will be sorry if these countries become republics and leave the Commonwealth.

So far, there is little reason to fear that they will leave the Commonwealth even if they would decide to become a republic at some point. For example, the latest monarchy turned republic (Barbados) remained in the Commonwealth as did many others before them.

 

[Sionevar]

And what about Canada? Does anyone know if they also have plans to be a republic?

I will be sorry if these countries become republics and leave the Commonwealth.

There is less support for the monarchy in Canada now than there was 10 or 20 years ago. We might not be ready to get rid of it yet, but we're moving in that general direction.

The big problem with Canada is not making the decision - it's implementing it. It would mean updating the Constitution, which requires the involvement and approval of all provinces and territories. A nightmare of a task.

I think most sensible Canadians feel the time and money that would have to be spent on making the change are better spent elsewhere. So, I don't expect to see the monarchy go in Canada unless something really drastic happens that makes us all say 'we need to spend that time and money anyway, because this is not on'.

 

[Iluvbertie]

And what about Canada? Does anyone know if they also have plans to be a republic?

I will be sorry if these countries become republics and leave the Commonwealth.

There are only 15 realms with QEII as Head of State.

There are over 50 countries in the Commonwealth.

Most of those 50+ nations are republics. Some have their own monarchy.

There is no suggestion that when Australia or NZ become republics that either would leave the Commonwealth. (We both enjoy our chance, every four years, to whip the poms at the Commonwealth Games after all).

 

[Curryong]

Article in the Guardian (Aus edition)

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...een-reign-good-opportunity-next-for-australia

Matt Thistlethwaite was on Wednesday sworn in as assistant minister for the republic by the Queen’s representative in Australia, the governor general, David Hurley.

Thistlethwaite joked with Hurley “your tenure is safe under us” – but his role may not survive a second term.
Labor’s 2021 national platform stated the party “supports and will work toward establishing an Australian republic with an Australian head of state”. The new prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has spoken at events held by the Australian Republican Movement, telling a 2019 dinner “a modern Australian republic is an idea whose time has come”.
Thistlethwaite said on Wednesday his principal role would be to educate the Australian people about the current constitutional arrangements and the English monarch as the head of state.
As Queen Elizabeth “comes to the twilight of her reign, it’s a good opportunity for a serious discussion about what comes next for Australia,” the assistant minister told the Guardian.
“Literally hundreds of Australians could perform the role, so why wouldn’t we appoint an Australian as our pinnacle position under the constitution? It will take time, but if you want to do it properly, we should begin the discussion now, so we’re ready to go in a second term of an Albanese government.”

 

[TLLK]

Article in the Guardian (Aus edition)

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...een-reign-good-opportunity-next-for-australia

Matt Thistlethwaite was on Wednesday sworn in as assistant minister for the republic by the Queen’s representative in Australia, the governor general, David Hurley.

Thistlethwaite joked with Hurley “your tenure is safe under us” – but his role may not survive a second term.
Labor’s 2021 national platform stated the party “supports and will work toward establishing an Australian republic with an Australian head of state”. The new prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has spoken at events held by the Australian Republican Movement, telling a 2019 dinner “a modern Australian republic is an idea whose time has come”.
Thistlethwaite said on Wednesday his principal role would be to educate the Australian people about the current constitutional arrangements and the English monarch as the head of state.
As Queen Elizabeth “comes to the twilight of her reign, it’s a good opportunity for a serious discussion about what comes next for Australia,” the assistant minister told the Guardian.
“Literally hundreds of Australians could perform the role, so why wouldn’t we appoint an Australian as our pinnacle position under the constitution? It will take time, but if you want to do it properly, we should begin the discussion now, so we’re ready to go in a second term of an Albanese government.”

Curryong-Does the Governor General handle the swearing in for new leaders when a new government is formed?

 

[Curryong]

Yes, as in
The Governor General’s programme
1 June 2022

On Wednesday 01 June 2022, His Excellency General the Honourable David Hurley AC DSC (Retd) presided at a meeting of the Federal Executive Council.
Afterwards, the Governor-General and Her Excellency Mrs Linda Hurley attended a ceremony at which the Governor-General issued the Oath or Affirmations of Office to newly appointed Ministers, Assistant Minsters and Parliamentary Secretaries:

The couple then left for London to attend the Jubilee celebrations!

 

[Durham]

In the Sydney Morning Herald it says that any referendum would take place in a second Labour government. Not the present one.

I wonder what impact if any Australia's rapidly deteriorating strategic situation might have on the constitutional debate. Symbolism does matter in international relations & Australia being in a personal union with the UK & Canada can't go unnoticed by Beijing.

Remaining as monarchies might have actual real world geopolitical benefits for both Australia & NZ.

 

[Durham]

There is no suggestion that when Australia or NZ become republics that either would leave the Commonwealth. (We both enjoy our chance, every four years, to whip the poms at the Commonwealth Games after all).

Can the mods please do something about this blatant Antipodean triumphalism.

 

[Durham]

I came across this recently from Hansard. It echoes much of what has been discused on here. This is from 1952. The Labour MP for Romford.

Nothing new under the sun.

From 1359 in:

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1952/jul/09/civil-list

"Under a Proclamation made by King George V similar to one made by Queen Victoria, the sons of the Sovereign count as princes, and their sons, but not after that. The result at the present time is that we have the young Duke of Kent and two young sons of the Duke of Gloucester who are debarred from any kind of commercial activity or any kind of career of their own; on the other hand, the two sons of the Princess Royal are allowed to lead their own lives and have their own careers. They are not princes, because they happen to be the sons of a Royal daughter instead of sons of a Royal son.

The suggestion I would make is that the time has come when the title of prince should be restricted just to the sons of the reigning Monarch, and that it should be withdrawn from, or not given to, other descendants, unless they happen to come into the direct line of succession to the Throne through the death of someone else. I think we should put them in the position where they can lead lives of their own, and—"

"if these people (members of the royal family) are prepared and want to carry out duties on behalf of the nation, that they should be in the position of being granted money from the contingency fund; but that, if they do not wish to do so, they should not be debarred from taking part in commercial activities and of living their own lives. I think that to restrict the title of prince in the way I have suggested would make it easier for them to lead normal lives and to earn their own livings if they so desire."

Elsewhere it talks about the new reign lasting fifty or even sixty years.?

 

[FigTree]

I came across this recently from Hansard. It echoes much of what has been discused on here. This is from 1952. The Labour MP for Romford.

Nothing new under the sun.

From 1359 in:

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1952/jul/09/civil-list

"Under a Proclamation made by King George V similar to one made by Queen Victoria, the sons of the Sovereign count as princes, and their sons, but not after that. The result at the present time is that we have the young Duke of Kent and two young sons of the Duke of Gloucester who are debarred from any kind of commercial activity or any kind of career of their own; on the other hand, the two sons of the Princess Royal are allowed to lead their own lives and have their own careers. They are not princes, because they happen to be the sons of a Royal daughter instead of sons of a Royal son.

The suggestion I would make is that the time has come when the title of prince should be restricted just to the sons of the reigning Monarch, and that it should be withdrawn from, or not given to, other descendants, unless they happen to come into the direct line of succession to the Throne through the death of someone else. I think we should put them in the position where they can lead lives of their own, and—"

"if these people (members of the royal family) are prepared and want to carry out duties on behalf of the nation, that they should be in the position of being granted money from the contingency fund; but that, if they do not wish to do so, they should not be debarred from taking part in commercial activities and of living their own lives. I think that to restrict the title of prince in the way I have suggested would make it easier for them to lead normal lives and to earn their own livings if they so desire."

Elsewhere it talks about the new reign lasting fifty or even sixty years.?

It's what is happening now really. I mean if Charlotte and Louis have children I am against titles. Regardless of whether Charlotte and Louos work for the firm.

I do think it's a tough one. It seems to be working with Bea and Eug ad they do some engagements but also work. Harder with the Harry issue. If he had stayed in the army, been an accountant, nurse, teacher whatever it wouldn't have been such an issues. It's the way it happened and their future depended commercial engagements. Same with Edward.

 

[Somebody]

Introducing the 'Lord' and 'Lady' styles for all grandchildren of the monarch might solve that issue - although that would not be consistent with the current rules for nobility, so that might require the daughters of the (future) monarch to be given a ducal title. On the other hand, currently great-grandsons already are Lord and Lady (if in mail line) independent of whether their father is a royal duke; so, the current situation also isn't fully in line with the traditions of the nobility.

 

[FigTree]

Introducing the 'Lord' and 'Lady' styles for all grandchildren of the monarch might solve that issue - although that would not be consistent with the current rules for nobility, so that might require the daughters of the (future) monarch to be given a ducal title. On the other hand, currently great-grandsons already are Lord and Lady (if in mail line) independent of whether their father is a royal duke; so, the current situation also isn't fully in line with the traditions of the nobility.

There are no current great grandchildren with any titles except the Cambridges. George V's great grandchildren are following an older styling.

Daughters and sons should be treated the same. No doubt about it. Lord and Lady would work and no titles at all for great grand children. But again that may not matter for a long time. I can't see Harry's children ever having titles really.

 

[Somebody]

There are no current great grandchildren with any titles except the Cambridges. George V's great grandchildren are following an older styling.

Daughters and sons should be treated the same. No doubt about it. Lord and Lady would work and no titles at all for great grand children. But again that may not matter for a long time. I can't see Harry's children ever having titles really.

I am not sure what you mean by 'older styling'. Lord Frederick Windsor and Lady Gabriella Kingston do use the lord/lady titles while their father is not a royal duke but a royal prince based on the current rules.

Lili could also use 'Lady' but her parents decided against it but she is fully 'entitled' to do so if she wishes (just like Archie is fully entitled to use his father's secondary title).

 

[FigTree]

I am not sure what you mean by 'older styling'. Lord Frederick Windsor and Lady Gabriella Kingston do use the lord/lady titles while their father is not a royal duke but a royal prince based on the current rules.

Lili could also use 'Lady' but her parents decided against it but she is fully 'entitled' to do so if she wishes (just like Archie is fully entitled to use his father's secondary title).

As in no one was thinking then of restricting titles so they got them.

They are entitled but as with Edward's children don't use titles they should have by law. They may never do so.

 

[Somebody]

As in no one was thinking then of restricting titles so they got them.

They are entitled but as with Edward's children don't use titles they should have by law. They may never do so.

They were definitely thinking of restricting titles at that point. That's why Letters Patent were created (several decades earlier). Previously they would have been Highnesses! These are still the CURRENT rules for all great-grandchildren except for those born to the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

However, this is turning into a thread about British titles instead of the future of the monarchy...

 

[FigTree]

They were definitely thinking of restricting titles at that point. That's why Letters Patent were created (several decades earlier). Previously they would have been Highnesses! These are still the CURRENT rules for all great-grandchildren except for those born to the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

However, this is turning into a thread about British titles instead of the future of the monarchy...

Well it is part of their future. Less titles and perhaps less working royals. Or more who do a bit and also have jobs. I mean that is essentially Eugenie and Beatrice now. All happening on the quiet. No fanfare. No drama. The family are very present at the moment. And other monarchies seem to operate like that. Recompense them for public duties. But of course they would be some what restricted in what they do.

The future technically looks fine. They seem secure as far as William. As the next generation then grow up and find their way in the world the balance between what they want and duty begins again.

Change happens all the time and often gradually. No one ever likes it and if it is subtle and relaxed so much the better.

 

[travelguy]

When do we think the next Jubilee will be, Charles or William's

Also looking far ahead into the future would Harry go to Charles and William's Coronation. Do we also think in the future Charles will really slimdown the monarchy or will we still see people like Archie in the future go to events and Charlotte/Louie's Children when the time comes?

 

[Curryong]

Unfortunately I don’t think Charles’s Coronation is too distant. And as Charles’s only other son and William’s only sibling Harry will almost certainly (barring disasters like deaths) be present at both his father and brother’s crownings. He’s a Peer of the realm as well as a royal Duke and IMO will pay homage in the ceremony.

 

[travelguy]

What about Archie, Lilibet and when the time Comes Charlotte and Louie's kids, do you think they would all have a role to play, hopefully exciting times to come with the monarchy in UK

 

[FigTree]

What about Archie, Lilibet and when the time Comes Charlotte and Louie's kids, do you think they would all have a role to play, hopefully exciting times to come with the monarchy in UK

On balance of probability no to all. But the future doesn’t exist yet.

 

[TLLK]

When do we think the next Jubilee will be, Charles or William's

Also looking far ahead into the future would Harry go to Charles and William's Coronation. Do we also think in the future Charles will really slimdown the monarchy or will we still see people like Archie in the future go to events and Charlotte/Louie's Children when the time comes?

I'm inclined to believe that Charles might have a silver one but that his reign isn't likely to be a long one.



Now I hope that we'll see them at events in the future. However if that doesn't occur then I believe that it's possible that when Archie and Lilibet are adults they might choose to attend.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

I actually believe that HM The Queen will make it to her second Diamond Jubilee in five years. HM The Queen Mother was nearly 102 when she died, in spite several injuries. HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, who was also a cousin to his wife, also made it to 100. Sure, HM The Queen has mobility issues, but what 96-year old doesn't? Yes, losing her husband has taken the wind out of her, but her mother lived for 50 years after her husband died (not that there's any wrong with dying soon after a spouse does). I think HM The Queen will still be on the throne when she's 100.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Philip didn't make it to 100. He died about two months short of his 100th birthday.

For Charles to have a silver jubilee he will need to live to be three years older than the Queen is when she dies i.e. if the Queen were to die today Charles would need to live to being 99 for a Silver Jubilee.

As for whether Harry would attend his father's and brother's coronations ... I would hope so as he would be expected to make the same oath of homage that The Duke of Edinburgh etc made in 1953 (the current Duke of Kent is the only person alive today who made that oath on that day aged 16).

Would George, Charlotte or Louis take part - would depend on their ages but I would expect them all to attend, if only for a small amount of time just as Charles, aged 4 attended The Queen's coronation in 1953 to see her get crowned.

I would expect George to make his homage to his father at William's coronation as he will be a peer of the realm the instant William becomes King, if not earlier. Charles, afterall has been a peer of the realm for 70 years now as Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay etc

 

[travelguy]

Don't know where to put this but has anyone ever been to royal events or planning on going in future, I might go to trooping the colour next year but what is the best place to stand