The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Curryong]

It depends what you mean by long. Charles is 72 in November, but if you look at his parents his mother especially, they are still going strong in their 90s. He could well be on the throne for twenty five years, which is a reasonably lengthy amount of time.

 

[Darius1]

It depends what you mean by long. Charles is 72 in November, but if you look at his parents his mother especially, they are still going strong in their 90s. He could well be on the throne for twenty five years, which is a reasonably lengthy amount of time.

In all likelihood it will be a short reign, possibly similar in length to that of Edward VII who contrary to expectations actually had a successful tenure as King.

 

[Curryong]

None of us know how long the future reign will be. King Edward VII lived for just over ten years as monarch. If Charles comes to the throne next year say, that means he would be dead at 82/83 after a ten year reign, a shortish life span for someone whose father has nearly reached his century, maternal grandmother surpassed it, and whose mother is in her mid-90s. Charles is a very fit man for his age. There's no reason why he can't rival his parents and grandmother.

 

[Osipi]

Let's face it. After most of us only knowing the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, any reign after hers will seem to be a short one.

 

[Pranter]

If the Queen lives to be over 100 (which seems totally likely) then Charles may be into his 80's before he's King.

Assuming Charles lives to be at least 100 (again seems very possible) then William would be into late 60's or early 70's before he's Monarch. In turn then George would be quite senior when he becomes Monarch.


LaRae

 

[Fijiro]

Correct. The stickler being that a woman takes her title from her husband hence Camilla is The Duchess of Cornwall because Charles is the Duke. To be a princess consort, first off, there is no "princess" title available to Camilla from Charles when he is king as he'll no longer be a "prince". Parliament would then have to approve of Camilla being a "princess in her own right just as Philip, when the time came, was created a prince in his own right by his wife. Until then, he was Lt. Philip Mountbatten-Windsor, Duke of Edinburgh.

In other words, should Camilla becomes "Princess Consort", she would be the first married in female to the royal family to attain the title of princess in her own right right besides those females that were born a princess of the royal blood.

Some people feel that "Princess Consort" is a "lesser" title when in actuality it elevates Camilla's status to not being dependent on her husband's titles. ?

I think I got that right. Need more coffee.

Prince Philip is not a Windsor; he is House of Glucksburg until 1947 and House of Mountbatten from 1947. Remember when he complained about not being able to give his children his surname!
His title before he became a Prince was His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten (by letter patent 1947). In 1957, The Queen granted him the style and title of a Prince and he is now styled as His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

 

[Somebody]

Prince Philip is not a Windsor; he is House of Glucksburg until 1947 and House of Mountbatten from 1947.
His title before he became a Prince was His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten (by letter patent 1947). In 1957, The Queen granted him the style and title of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

He got the title of Duke of Edinburgh on his wedding day (one day earlier he received the style of HRH). He only had to wait for the 'The Prince Philip'-part until 1957. However, this discussion is more appropriate for the 'British titles thread' where other posts on the same topic can be found.

 

[Fijiro]

He got the title of Duke of Edinburgh on his wedding day (one day earlier he received the style of HRH). He only had to wait for the 'The Prince Philip'-part until 1957. However, this discussion is more appropriate for the 'British titles thread' where other posts on the same topic can be found.

I do agree; all I wanted to say is that Prince Philip is not a Windsor, he is a Mountbatten.

 

[Pranter]

Er well really Windsor is just a made up name that replaced Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.


LaRae

 

[Denville]

Er well really Windsor is just a made up name that replaced Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.


LaRae

So is Mountbatten...

 

[Osipi]

Prince Philip is not a Windsor; he is House of Glucksburg until 1947 and House of Mountbatten from 1947. Remember when he complained about not being able to give his children his surname!
His title before he became a Prince was His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten (by letter patent 1947). In 1957, The Queen granted him the style and title of a Prince and he is now styled as His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

Thanks. Told you I needed more coffee.

It wasn't until later that the Queen even coined the name Mountbatten-Windsor for her descendants not holding HRH and royal titles.

The brain can be a marvelously confusing thing when not fed enough caffeine it needs.

 

[Pranter]

So is Mountbatten...

Yes so what difference does it make that Phillip doesn't carry the surname Windsor.



LaRae

 

[Fijiro]

The point is Prince Philip did not take his wife's name.

Moutbatten is not made up, but it is a translation from German to English.

 

[muriel]

The point is Prince Philip did not take his wife's name.

Moutbatten is not made up, but it is a translation from German to English.

It was expedient at the time for the Battenberg's to drop their German sounding name to become Mountbattens.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I do agree; all I wanted to say is that Prince Philip is not a Windsor, he is a Mountbatten.

He is not really a Mountbatten. He is a Prince of Greece and Denmark from the royal dynasty Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.

He had to relinguish his royal style and title and chose to adapt his British mother's anglicized surname "Mountbatten" to stress he is half British indeed.

 

[Denville]

Yes so what difference does it make that Phillip doesn't carry the surname Windsor.



LaRae

Im not sure what you mean

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Er well really Windsor is just a made up name that replaced Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.


LaRae

Windsor was derived from the name of Windsor Castle. Nearly all names of European royal dynasties were originally taken from the names of their castles or lands, including Saxony, Coburg, Gotha, and Battenberg, so the Windsors were merely following an ancient tradition in 1917.

There is by the way a thread for this topic:

Windsor/Mountbatten-Windsor: Name of Royal House and Surname

 

[Mbruno]

It was expedient at the time for the Battenberg's to drop their German sounding name to become Mountbattens.

Berg means mount (or "mountain") in German. So Mountbatten is just an English translation of Battenberg.

 

[tommy100]

One sign of the future, Charles will not renew his lease of Home Farm near his Highgrove home when it comes up in Spring. The Prince "can't commit to a new 20 year lease" and Clarence House has said "The Prince of Wales will not be renewing his lease on Home Farm but will continue to farm organically at Sandringham."

A clear sign that he is taking over more at Sandringham and that will be his future.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-53819052

 

[Mbruno]

One sign of the future, Charles will not renew his lease of Home Farm near his Highgrove home when it comes up in Spring. The Prince "can't commit to a new 20 year lease" and Clarence House has said "The Prince of Wales will not be renewing his lease on Home Farm but will continue to farm organically at Sandringham."

A clear sign that he is taking over more at Sandringham and that will be his future.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-53819052

Sorry, I am not familiar with the details of the Prince's finances and farming activities. Was Home Farm associated with his Duchy estate or a completely separate thing? And how does he farm exactly at Sandringham? Does he lease land from the Queen, who owns the estate?

 

[tommy100]

Home Farm is located right next to Highgrove, both are owned by the Duchy of Cornwall and leased by Charles. He is only giving up the lease on Home Farm, not Highgrove itself. (That we know of so far anyway) Wikipedia has a page on it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_Home_Farm. Basically it sounds like it farms most the land around Highgrove and some of the produce sold as Duchy Originals is from there. Obviously it is run on a day to day basis by a Farm manager and support staff but Charles has been "the boss".

Charles is said to have been "handed responsibility" for the running of Sandringham since around December 2014 taking over from Philip who was in charge before. Again I'm sure it is managed by people for him but he is the one making the big decisions and giving the direction. The Sandringham Estate is still owned by HM, as far as we know, and will likely be left to Charles in her will as all bequests from Sovereign to Sovereign are free of tax.

 

[Grousewood]

The Home Farm at Sandringham was always large and productive. A lot of work was put into farm infrastructure, including greenhouses and barns, and there were orchards as well as espaliered fruit trees in the gardens. We don't hear about it much now.

 

[tommy100]

Have to agree we don't that much about the farming side of Sandringham, all I know is they make their own apple juice and provide blackcurrants for Ribena (or use to)

 

[Grousewood]

Interesting! The Sandringham estate is huge, so it will certainly offer opportunities for expansion. PS: I wonder how the DofE's truffle project is going. I think it is a Wood's Farm.

 

[Osipi]

If I'm not mistaken, the Duke of Edinburgh really flourished in his job as being the estate manager of Sandringham. He loves to putter. He loves to come up with the new and improved way of doing something. This is why it doesn't surprise me that he prefers to reside at Wood Farm and keep his finger on the pulse of everything going on in regards to the estate.

I think this is where Charles takes after his father. They're both doers and thinking of ways to do things better rather than leave the job to someone else to do. ?

 

[AC21091968]

Most people in most Constitutional monarchies are not that interested. they may feel a mild liking, or they may just feel that the sysetem works fairly well so why fix it? But I thnk that some Americans think that because a country is a monarchy, its people are all interested in their particular RF and devoted to the people in it.

I lived in Australia with a constitutional monarchy. Yes, there are royal watchers or royal fans who follows the British Royal Family members closely. Perhaps there are more royal watchers or staunch followers in Canada, Australia and New Zealand compare to the UK (this is just speculation)

Then there are constitutional monarchists, who want The Sovereign (or Monarchy of the United Kingdom) to be Australia's head of State. These people may not necessary be interested in the Royal Family, but would much prefer the current system than an elected Head of State (i.e. Republic).

Recently, I saw a Facebook post (I have yet to find the link), where the President or Chairman of the British Monarchy Support League (something along the lines) wants the Duke of Sussex title remove from Harry and Meghan. This society has an Honorary position for a MP, who belongs to the Conservative Party.

I am still finding for the link, but I am not sure if I could find it

 

[Denville]

I lived in Australia with a constitutional monarchy. Yes, there are royal watchers or royal fans who follows the British Royal Family members closely. Perhaps there are more royal watchers or staunch followers in Canada, Australia and New Zealand compare to the UK (this is just speculation)

Then there are constitutional monarchists, who want The Sovereign (or Monarchy of the United Kingdom) to be Australia's head of State. These people may not necessary be interested in the Royal Family, but would much prefer the current system than an elected Head of State (i.e. Republic).

Recently, I saw a Facebook post (I have yet to find the link), where the President or Chairman of the British Monarchy Support League (something along the lines) wants the Duke of Sussex title remove from Harry and Meghan. This society has an Honorary position for a MP, who belongs to the Conservative Party.

I am still finding for the link, but I am not sure if I could find it

I doubt if many people are that bothered about Harry keeping his duke of Sussex title..and I doubt if there are many in this league.. Unless H and Meg make some big announcement that they don't like teh UK and that they're much happier in US, or if Meghan does go in for a formal political role, I think his dukedom is safe.

 

[Durham]

Then there are constitutional monarchists, who want The Sovereign (or Monarchy of the United Kingdom) to be Australia's head of State. These people may not necessary be interested in the Royal Family, but would much prefer the current system than an elected Head of State (i.e. Republic).

Accepting the monarchy is the default position for most people in the UK. At least for the moment.

On the other hand the spectacle of members of the royal family cynically using their status to enrich themselves or amplify their voice, whilst not turning Britain into a republic overnight, will certainly chip away at peoples’ respect for the current system. And undermine trust. If Britain ever does become a republic it will be a process & not an event. Death by a thousand cuts as it were.

At least with a republic the relatives of the head of state can only be prominent for a term or two.

[....]

 

[Denville]

Accepting the monarchy is the default position for most people in the UK. At least for the moment.

On the other hand the spectacle of members of the royal family cynically using their status to enrich themselves or amplify their voice, whilst not turning Britain into a republic overnight, will certainly chip away at peoples’ respect for the current system. And undermine trust. If Britain ever does become a republic it will be a process & not an event. Death by a thousand cuts as it were.

At least with a republic the relatives of the head of state can only be prominent for a term or two.

Mods - please move if this is best in another thread.

I rather thought that a lot of Australians wuld prefer an Australian non royal head of state....

 

[Durham]

I rather thought that a lot of Australians wuld prefer an Australian non royal head of state....

Sorry I don't follow. I was commenting on constitutional monarchy in the UK & how the actions of members of the royal family can erode support for it over time. I'm sure lots of (most?) Australians might prefer one of their own as HofS.