The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Tatiana Maria]

That is true girls remain sidelined as far as titles go. Even though Charlotte is ahead of Louis, Charlotte's children will not be titled just like Eugenie's and Anne's, but Louis' children will be titled.

Yes, indeed. In addition, under the current rules and expectations of the British monarchy:

Louis's titles will automatically be shared with his wife. Charlotte will not be permitted to share any of her titles with her husband.

Louis will eventually be granted a hereditary dukedom, conferring on him and his male heirs (but not his female descendants or their descendants) legal privileges including the right to stand for one of 90 seats allocated to hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Charlotte will receive only the courtesy title of Princess Royal, which is non-hereditary and devoid of attached privileges.

Louis will retain his full titles and surname after marriage, without modifications. Charlotte will lose any territorial designation she carries (such as "of Wales") and the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

Louis will not need to acknowledge his wife in his title. Charlotte will be required to include a reference to her husband in her full title (Princess Charlotte, Mrs. John Smith).

Louis's wife will renounce her career upon marriage, and the responsibility for caring for their children will fall mainly on her. Charlotte's husband will continue on in his career, and the responsibility for caring for their children will fall mainly on Charlotte.

Louis will have the partnership and support of his wife and share with her the role and privileges of a senior working royal. Charlotte will only be accompanied by her husband, who will continue to live a largely private life, at family events.

If Louis's wife is a foreigner or lives abroad, he will remain in England and his wife will relocate. If Charlotte's husband is a foreigner or lives abroad, she will relocate to the country where her husband lives and works.

 

[JR76]

Yes, indeed. In addition, under the current rules and expectations of the British monarchy:

Louis's titles will automatically be shared with his wife. Charlotte will not be permitted to share any of her titles with her husband.

Louis will eventually be granted a hereditary dukedom, conferring on him and his male heirs (but not his female descendants or their descendants) legal privileges including the right to stand for one of 90 seats allocated to hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Charlotte will receive only the courtesy title of Princess Royal, which is non-hereditary and devoid of attached privileges.

Louis will retain his full titles and surname after marriage, without modifications. Charlotte will lose any territorial designation she carries (such as "of Wales") and the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

Louis will not need to acknowledge his wife in his title. Charlotte will be required to include a reference to her husband in her full title (Princess Charlotte, Mrs. John Smith).

Louis's wife will renounce her career upon marriage, and the responsibility for caring for their children will fall mainly on her. Charlotte's husband will continue on in his career, and the responsibility for caring for their children will fall mainly on Charlotte.

Louis will have the partnership and support of his wife and share with her the role and privileges of a senior working royal. Charlotte will only be accompanied by her husband, who will continue to live a largely private life, at family events.

If Louis's wife is a foreigner or lives abroad, he will remain in England and his wife will relocate. If Charlotte's husband is a foreigner or lives abroad, she will relocate to the country where her husband lives and works.

Let's hope that by the time the Cambridge kids are old enough to start families of their own the expectations you mention have moved on from their current quite old-fashioned state. Regarding the expectation that women who marry into the family it seems that things were about to change for Meghan had she wanted to.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Is King Charles III a frightening prospect?

 

[Betsypaige]

I, for one, refuse to watch what looks to be a horrible video.

Charles won't have a long reign, but however unpopular he will be, I firmly believe he'll be an excellent king.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I always love 'Charles won't have a long reign'. If he lives to whatever age his mother lives he will have a reign of 22 years - hardly short.

 

[ACO]

I always love 'Charles won't have a long reign'. If he lives to whatever age his mother lives he will have a reign of 22 years - hardly short.

Charles seems quite healthy. God willing he lives to see his 90s as well, and yes that’s quite a reign, indeed.

 

[Betsypaige]

Charles seems quite healthy. God willing he lives to see his 90s as well, and yes that’s quite a reign, indeed.

I certainly would love to see this...

 

[Mbruno]

I, for one, refuse to watch what looks to be a horrible video.

Charles won't have a long reign, but however unpopular he will be, I firmly believe he'll be an excellent king.

Charles won't be a factor in the downfall of the monarchy in the United Kingdom. He may be a factor in some Commonwealth realms like Australia, Jamaica or New Zealand (maybe even in Canada). Republicans in the aforementioned countries will be more active anyway when the Queen passes, even if William is King instead of Charles, which has very liitle chance of happening BTW.

I always love 'Charles won't have a long reign'. If he lives to whatever age his mother lives he will have a reign of 22 years - hardly short.

I get your point, but isn't a 20-year reign considered relatively short by modern European standards ?

 

[Stefan]

I get your point, but isn't a 20-year reign considered relatively short by modern European standards ?

Depends on. If you look at the UK you have before the present Queen a reign of 15 years and of 25 years (without Edward VIII), in Denmark you have a reigns of almost 25 years and of 35 years, in Sweden you have 23 years, in the Netherlands one has reigns of 33 years and of 31,5 years.

It is now the case that there are 3 european monarchs who have quiet a long reign but that is also because the became King/Queen quiet young.

 

[Denville]

it doesn't matter really does it? Charles wont become king till probably his mid 70s so of course he's not going to have a LOOONG reign.. but he'll do a good job.. the queen's had a very long reign but she certainly didn't expect to become queen at 25 and it was due to her father's sadly early death...

 

[Betsypaige]

Charles won't be a factor in the downfall of the monarchy in the United Kingdom. He may be a factor in some Commonwealth realms like Australia, Jamaica or New Zealand (maybe even in Canada). Republicans in the aforementioned countries will be more active anyway when the Queen passes, even if William is King instead of Charles, which has very liitle chance of happening BTW.

It would be a shame if they left the Commonwealth because they don’t like Charles, but I certainly wouldn’t blame him - that’s their decision. Is that what the video was about ? Charles being unpopular in the Commonwealth ?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Just because countries become a republic doesn't mean they will leave the Commonwealth. The vast majority of the Commonwealth countries are already republics - places like India, Pakistan, South Africa and Trinidad and Tobago. Barbados will soon join the list of republics but I have seen no suggestion that Barbados wants to leave the Commonwealth.

Charles was unanimously elected the next Head of the Commonwealth but republics and realms alike. The former PM of Australia, an avowed republican, Julia Gillard, publicly said she thought Prince Charles was the best choice to take over the position as Head of the Commonwealth when the time came.

When Australia debated becoming a republic in 1999 there was no suggestion that we would leave the Commonwealth (we already knew we would be hosting the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne in 2006 at the time of the referendum which says a lot about the idea of leaving the Commonwealth).

 

[Fijiro]

Just because countries become a republic doesn't mean they will leave the Commonwealth. The vast majority of the Commonwealth countries are already republics - places like India, Pakistan, South Africa and Trinidad and Tobago. Barbados will soon join the list of republics but I have seen no suggestion that Barbados wants to leave the Commonwealth.

Charles was unanimously elected the next Head of the Commonwealth but republics and realms alike. The former PM of Australia, an avowed republican, Julia Gillard, publicly said she thought Prince Charles was the best choice to take over the position as Head of the Commonwealth when the time came.

When Australia debated becoming a republic in 1999 there was no suggestion that we would leave the Commonwealth (we already knew we would be hosting the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne in 2006 at the time of the referendum which says a lot about the idea of leaving the Commonwealth).

You are right 37 out of the 53 Countries that form the Commonwealth of Nations are Republics with their own Heads of State and Governments. Only 16 are Commonwealth Realms with the Queen as their Head of State.

 

[Iluvbertie]

And one of those realms is due to become a republic later this year - by 30th November although that isn't final yet.

 

[Kataryn]

Charles seems quite healthy. God willing he lives to see his 90s as well, and yes that’s quite a reign, indeed.

If what we think we know about the public opinion in the Uk because of what the papers write, we see now how fast they can change their tune when there is a death in the family. What will happen when the queen dies, apart from Charles becoming king the moment his mother closes her eyes forever?


We will see Camilla as the queen because who will tell the mourning new king that his wife is not good enough to be what the wife of the king always was: his queen? I doubt the papers will demand it and the politicians will do nothing to diminish their new king with that. And neither will Archie M-B be denied his rightful title of HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. I mean, we already accepted his first name as "Royal"...



Harry and Meghan have shown that you can be Royal and not work for the "public". Here on these forums and in some papers people have cried out for the removal of their Royal titles/styles, but thus far parliament's members have kept very quiet and I guess they will do so till they know what the new king will want. And while it is good that members of the Royal family do pseudo-ceremonial visits etc., open little windows to show new plaques or open places by cutting ribbons ("whatever that might be", to quote Prince Philip), it is something politicians or heads of charities can do as well, we learned that it doesn't really matter if you have Royals there or honorable others.


IMHO wearing uniforms showing off your "honorary military accolades" at funerals is over now because the question what is to be done with Andrew and Harry (the only members of the RF with an actual background in fighting for their country, while we all know about The Earl of Wessex and his uniform...) will stick around for the queen's death. And I'm not sure peerage coronets or minor Royal crowns with an ermine and scarlett velvet-coat is a good replacement. But maybe it is? And maybe the queen will live to see James Severn as a military man? (Though that doesn't answer the question about Harry and Andrew? But maybe the queen and her advisors will figure something out?



I think at king Charles' reign a lot of things will change because the things can't stay as they were. But I am pretty sure the monarchy of the Uk is not in danger with the current line of succession. And how will know what will happen till George is about to inherit from his father William?

 

[Betsypaige]

Just because countries become a republic doesn't mean they will leave the Commonwealth. The vast majority of the Commonwealth countries are already republics - places like India, Pakistan, South Africa and Trinidad and Tobago. Barbados will soon join the list of republics but I have seen no suggestion that Barbados wants to leave the Commonwealth.

Charles was unanimously elected the next Head of the Commonwealth but republics and realms alike. The former PM of Australia, an avowed republican, Julia Gillard, publicly said she thought Prince Charles was the best choice to take over the position as Head of the Commonwealth when the time came.

When Australia debated becoming a republic in 1999 there was no suggestion that we would leave the Commonwealth (we already knew we would be hosting the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne in 2006 at the time of the referendum which says a lot about the idea of leaving the Commonwealth).

That’s informative - thanks !

 

[Osipi]

You’re welcome ! They are, and it’s profoundly moving to see.

Interesting article in the Telegraph ...I suppose it was to be expected, but there will be a summit - led by Charles and William - to determine the future of the Monarchy.





https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...de-future-monarchy-led-prince-charles-prince/

The Way Ahead Group: The Sequel

This absolutely sounds like something Philip would have advised Charles to do. Sit down and hash out how things will go in the future and plan for every contingency.

 

[Sionevar]

The Daily Mail is now reporting that Prince Charles and Prince William will hold a summit within the next few weeks to decide the royal family's future, including who will have an official role.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...summit-weeks-decide-Royal-Familys-future.html

It will be interesting to see if this summit impacts Harry and Meghan's status in any way. I wouldn't expect so, but never say never...

 

[Erin9]

Well a few front pages are claiming Harry, William and Charles met up for almost 2 hours today (yesterday?). And according to the Telegraph there will be a summit held soon to discuss if “part time royals” can happen in the future.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...de-future-monarchy-led-prince-charles-prince/

So maybe what Harry wanted for himself might be possible for Louis, Charlotte, etc when they come of age.

Hopefully they had some productive time together. If indeed it happened.

Maybe. I think it is possible to be part- time. But I think a big part of the problem with Harry and Meghan being part time royals is what their “other” time was supposed to look like. Saying you want to be an accountant in addition to doing royal duties is a bit different than what they wanted.

And then, of course, the way the Sussexes went about it was all wrong IMO. You don’t put up a website wishlist as fact and force the issue into the public domain like that.

 

[Osipi]

The Daily Mail is now reporting that Prince Charles and Prince William will hold a summit within the next few weeks to decide the royal family's future, including who will have an official role.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...summit-weeks-decide-Royal-Familys-future.html

It will be interesting to see if this summit impacts Harry and Meghan's status. I wouldn't expect so, but never say never...

My first gut reaction was that the summit will discuss a rumor we've all been hearing for so long that it's now of legal drinking age. The "slimming down of the monarchy" rumor.

This summit may also see the changes made to limiting the HRH prince/ss to the direct line of succession in the future meaning that Harry and Meghan's children will not be eligible when Charles becomes king. The Sussex children really don't *need* the HRH prince/ss as they'll be living primarily in the USA and have American citizenship.

As far as working engagements, I think we'll see that with a slimmed down monarchy that there'll be more and more charities and patronages covered by an "umbrella" like The Royal Foundation and The Prince's Trust.

Basically, though, I see it as the resurrection of the Way Ahead group from the 1990s.

 

[Somebody]

As the thread about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex nor the one on the Funeral seem to be the right place to discuss the future of the British monarchy (and to avoid discussing it in different threads; although I am now starting a third one), I thought it might be better to respond here.

You’re welcome ! They are, and it’s profoundly moving to see.

Interesting article in the Telegraph ...I suppose it was to be expected, but there will be a summit - led by Charles and William - to determine the future of the Monarchy.

Royal insiders say that the two matters cannot be decided in isolation, as the issues of patronage and personnel are inextricably linked.

Because any decisions made now will have repercussions for decades to come, the Prince of Wales will take a leading role in the talks. He has made it clear that the Duke of Cambridge, his own heir, should be involved at every stage because any major decisions taken by 72-year-old Prince Charles will last into Prince William’s reign.

....

Royal sources explained that the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge, with the help of the Queen, would now have to decide whether the monarchy should continue with its traditional model of thousands of engagements each year, spread out between a broad base of full-time and part-time working royals, or cut down the number of engagements and patronages and use fewer members of the family to fulfil them.

One source said: “The question is whether you start off by deciding how many patronages and engagements there should be, and then work out how many people are needed to achieve them, or whether you decide how many people there should be, which will dictate how many engagements and patronages they can take on.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...de-future-monarchy-led-prince-charles-prince/

That final paragraph is really the main issue: what angle will you be taken? Do you look into what is done and adjust the number of 'active' royals to that or do you start looking from the number of royals you will have available and adjust the workload.

The Daily Mail is now reporting that Prince Charles and Prince William will hold a summit within the next few weeks to decide the royal family's future, including who will have an official role.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...summit-weeks-decide-Royal-Familys-future.html

It will be interesting to see if this summit impacts Harry and Meghan's status in any way. I wouldn't expect so, but never say never...

I don't expect their status to be impacted either. I am sure the decisions taken over the last year were made with heavy involvement from Charles and William. I'd say they take the current situation (which excludes Harry and Meghan by their own choice) as a given and work out a plan from there.

My first gut reaction was that the summit will discuss a rumor we've all been hearing for so long that it's now of legal drinking age. The "slimming down of the monarchy" rumor.

This summit may also see the changes made to limiting the HRH prince/ss to the direct line of succession in the future meaning that Harry and Meghan's children will not be eligible when Charles becomes king. The Sussex children really don't *need* the HRH prince/ss as they'll be living primarily in the USA and have American citizenship.

As far as working engagements, I think we'll see that with a slimmed down monarchy that there'll be more and more charities and patronages covered by an "umbrella" like The Royal Foundation and The Prince's Trust.

Basically, though, I see it as the resurrection of the Way Ahead group from the 1990s.

It indeed seems like a new Way Ahead group; and given all that has transpired over the last year and a half, it makes sense to go back to the drawing board and work through different scenarios. I am sure that while Charles and William are taking the lead, Catherine's views (on especially the role of their children) will be taken into account as well.

 

[Alison H]

I think that's all there was to it. There wasn't enough room to walk three abreast inside the chapel, especially as no-one's supposed to be getting too close because of Covid restrictions.


The Telegraph article makes the very good point that Philip's patronages and other roles will now have to be redistributed. There's also the issue of what the Queen will and won't want to do, going forward. I don't think this is about Harry and Meghan - but, with them out of the picture, Andrew effectively out of the picture, Princess Alexandra pretty much being retired, and Prince Philip now sadly gone, it's all getting quite difficult. It's all very well for the press to say that having a royal patron doesn't make that much difference to an organisation, but how do you ring them up and say, sorry, we haven't got room for you any more?

 

[Alisa]

The Daily Mail is now reporting that Prince Charles and Prince William will hold a summit within the next few weeks to decide the royal family's future, including who will have an official role.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...summit-weeks-decide-Royal-Familys-future.html

It will be interesting to see if this summit impacts Harry and Meghan's status in any way. I wouldn't expect so, but never say never...

Part of me thinks this is futile. Several scenarios come to mind:

-What if the Queen outlives Charles? Then it is back to the drawing board.
-What if one of the Cambridge kids wants a private life and opt not to have titles for their children a la Princess Anne?
- Will the York Princesses be allowed to step up and into an official role?
-We' ve seen a bit more than usual of Lady Louise Windsor over the last few days. Will she be stepping into an official role despite growing up largely expected to live a private life?

Lots of questions and possible scenarios, lots of unknowns that is dependent on time and circumstances.

 

[Heavs]

As for the Sussexes becoming part-time royals in the future, I doubt it. They've proved this year that what they want to do, speaking out on politics, signing $100m contracts among other things aren't compatible with being a working royal. If they had jobs that were like Bea and Eugenie then maybe it would be possible. But how can you be sure a royal tour won't end up being made into a for-profit documentary for Netflix ala Invictus now is? Even if they say they won't or they're donating the money to charity.

Not to mention that how can his family/The Firm trust that they won't find themselves "trapped" and "not supported" again if they get told "no" and "have to" run off to do an updated interview?

I might be wrong but nothing over the last year has shown anyone part-time is a reasonable way forward.

I'm not sure Royal Patronages could go under the Prince's Trust since that's a specific organisation in its own right. They might eventually do as WA did in the Netherlands and drop all but a few but for now I think they'll divide them up.

I don't think they'll make any specific announcements about the future reign of Charles III or whatever his name might be, including titles for the Sussex kids whilst his mother is still reigning and hopefully will do so for a few more years yet. More like "how do we handle being down three members and HM passing more and more of the day to day work" with a "Way Ahead" look privately.

I think they'll leave the HRH issue because of the drama surrounding the false security and racism accusations and let that die down.

 

[Osipi]

I think they'll leave the HRH issue because of the drama surrounding the false security and racism accusations and let that die down.

I honestly believe that whatever is discussed or whatever plans are agreed on to be put in place will never reach the public domain at all.

 

[Erin9]

The Funeral of HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

The Way Ahead Group: The Sequel



This absolutely sounds like something Philip would have advised Charles to do. Sit down and hash out how things will go in the future and plan for every contingency.

Yes, it sounds like something Philip would have advised.

I do think it’s worth looking at half in/half out. I don’t think the Sussex way is likely ever do-able, but I think many other jobs could work.

 

[Curryong]

If this report is correct I believe that first of all will come decisions over the literally hundreds of patronages and charities connected to Prince Philip, including military ones. The Queen is 95 and her patronage?s/charities also number in the hundreds.

The future of all these has to be taken into account. IMO most of them will be shed, leaving only the most important ones under some sort of umbrella Foundation. I believe this would have happened even if Andrew and the Sussexes had still been working royals. The younger members of the family just can?t and won?t take on hundreds of mainly minor charities any more. Andrew’s remaining charities and Patronages including military ones can’t be kept in abeyance for ever either.

If this discussion does indeed encompass the two reigns then there will no doubt IMO be discussions about who will be fulltime working royals in say another thirty years. Princess Anne, the Queen?s cousins, even the Wessexes might no longer be around. I believe the question of royal ?spares? will be discussed, and that will impact Charlotte and Louis. I believe and think that they will be given the option when they are in their teens of future careers in the outside world.

This will be because, (and this is directly due to what has happened with the Sussexes leaving and Andrew being dropped,) that a sleeker leaner BRF is what will be proposed. It may even be cut to the bone in William?s reign with just the King, Consort, heir and wife. That is in line with many Continental monarchies, and the titles of spares will also change as well. Jmo.

Just to finish off, I can see the titles of the children of male indirect heirs going, so no more Princesses Beatrices and Princess Eugenies. Spares will in the future, I believe, be encouraged to take up life long careers, and the children of Louis and subsequent spares will not be titled.

I can?t see Charles adding anyone to the payroll as working royals, as the charities become severely culled. There won?t be any need for it and Princess Anne, the Wessexes and the Gloucesters will continue as working royals for the forseeable future.

Eugenie has husband, baby and full time job. Beatrice will likely be starting a family soon. Both have their own charities. Why would either want to be full time royals with all the constraints the role entails? Nor do I think the Wessex children will have anything other than full time careers.

Forgot to add that Andrew?s charities and patronages are probably going to be reassigned/dropped in the next few months. His military patronages like the Grenadier Guards hon Colonelcy will probably go to a retired senior officer of their own.

 

[Kellydofc]

Part of me thinks this is futile. Several scenarios come to mind:

-What if the Queen outlives Charles? Then it is back to the drawing board.
-What if one of the Cambridge kids wants a private life and opt not to have titles for their children a la Princess Anne?
- Will the York Princesses be allowed to step up and into an official role?
-We' ve seen a bit more than usual of Lady Louise Windsor over the last few days. Will she be stepping into an official role despite growing up largely expected to live a private life?

Lots of questions and possible scenarios, lots of unknowns that is dependent on time and circumstances.

I'm sure scenario one has been discussed no matter how unlikely it is. Especially when Charles got Covid.

I don't think any of the Cambridge kids children beyond George's children will be offered titles. And I rather suspect that they, Charlotte and Louis, will have rather limited roles.

Beatrice and Eugenie are private and are likely to remain so as will Louise. If anyone is going to step up it is going to be Edward and Sophie. I have no doubt that's why we've seen more of them during Covid. I REALLY think they're going to take over the Harry and Meghan role for the foreseeable future. Where the family goes when George et all are older remains to be seen. But I don't think they'll expect all the Chambridge children to be working royals their entire lives.

Of course you can't plan for every scenario but the royal family has been doing this for centuries so you can bet they've planned for a lot of them, including Charles and William dying prior to Elizabeth and George being crowned the next monarch or even George dying and Charlotte becoming Queen after her great-grandmother. It would be nuts but I bet someone, somewhere has planned for it just in case.

The meeting they're currently having, however is likely planning for the most likely scenarios which include Charles becoming the next king and Harry not ever being part of the working family again. It's also going to look ahead to what to do in regards to William's children so something like the current situation doesn't happen again. Perhaps if you raise the children to know they'll never be working royals they'll be better adjusted as Louise and James seem to be.

 

[Hallo girl]

I honestly believe that whatever is discussed or whatever plans are agreed on to be put in place will never reach the public domain at all.

You are right, there will just be slight changes as we go along. No big announcements.
Although with Philip having 800 patronages they might have to do something about that.

 

[Moran]

You are right, there will just be slight changes as we go along. No big announcements.
Although with Philip having 800 patronages they might have to do something about that.

Didn't they do something about some of them when he retired? I think they reassigned some of them to other members of the RF. Surely this isn't the first time they realize that there are 800 for which something must be done?