The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Denville]

I don't but I don't overestimate it either. We see the smiling faces & the excited people who enjoy that kind of thing but the sky won't fall in if it doesn't happen. It's a rare event anyway for a royal to visit your school/hospital/factory so most people don't experience it in their lifetime. The absence of something they don't expect to happen isn't such a big deal as some might imagine it is.

if that is the case, then the RF can manage fine with about 4 or 5 people.. so Charles, Camilla, flanked by Will and kate, will do the job Ok.... no need for anyone else

 

[Denville]

Camilla will be Queen Camilla. She is not a Princess, so if they want her to be "Princess Consort", they would first have to create her a Princess in her own rights. But as a Queen she is just a consort to the King.

She is a Princess, she is HRH THe Princess of Wales.. and a Princess by virtue of her marraige to Charles, who is a Prince.

 

[Fijiro]

The UK monarchy has one thing that the other European monarchies don't have - more realms. The Queen is not only the Queen of the UK but of 15 other realms. Sure that number will drop over time no doubt but still the monarch is monarch of 16 countries.

They are also head of the Commonwealth - a huge group of nations representing about one-third of the world's population.

To keep the Commonwealth together it is important that they are visited by royals from time to time. Can the monarch and heir and their spouses do that?

The Head of the Commonwealth of Nations does not have to be a British Monarchy, and it is not hereditary. The 54 Nations have equal rights and can vote to pick another Head. That is why the Queen, at the last meeting, campaigned for Prince Charles to be voted as the next Head of the Commonwealth of Nations. After Prince Charles, who knows what direction the 54 Countries that form the Commonwealth of Nations will go to elect their next Head.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Very interesting discussion. I agree with many that the current appearances by some of the less glamorous members are often unnoticed despite highlighting important events and causes. I don't think paring those appearances down will have any major impact on the perception of the royal family.

With respect on whether Charles and William are actually thinking about reducing the number of royals, I think there was a public confirmation when Meghan and Harry expressed concern about Archie's prospective title. On that issue, I don't think there will be much outrage, even in the United States, if Harry's children are not HRHs when they are being raised in the United States.

Over the next twenty years, fewer members of the family will effectively be able to represent the government on oversees trips, meet with foreign dignitaries, and promote important causes, (mental health, homelessness, etc) rather than specific charities. The royal family can also continue to be the unifying focus for the nation. With respect to funding, the family naturally will want to have as much money as possible but I think that the sovereign grant will inevitably be reduced.

At the same time, Charles will want to give William as much flexibility as possible. Things could change drastically in the next 20 years. There may be a major movement to abolish the monarchy but there may also be a groundswell of public support and more interest in the royal family.

 

[Sunnystar]

The single biggest problem in comparing the continental monarchies to the UK is the population differences. Spain is probably the next biggest country in population to the UK but they are still much smaller than the UK. It is ridiculous to think that a country with the population of Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, or the Netherlands needs as many working royals as a country with the population the size of the UK.

 

[Denville]

The single biggest problem in comparing the continental monarchies to the UK is the population differences. Spain is probably the next biggest country in population to the UK but they are still much smaller than the UK. It is ridiculous to think that a country with the population of Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, or the Netherlands needs as many working royals as a country with the population the size of the UK.

True, but there are also the connections with many other countries, that have been around for a long time and that the BRF clearly feels they want to maintain if possible. AND there's the fact that for a long time, the BRF was large and had a lot of royals involved in charities -.. and they may genuinely feel that its not fair to drop them abruptly. Over time, Im sure that when C is king he will take steps to slim down the number of charities they patronise and find other ways to engage with people.. but the point is OVER TIME. the disgrace of Andy in November 2019 and the departure of Meg and Harry a month later.. meant that they lost 3 of their younger workers, who were meant to continue the RF's work into the next reign, all at once.. and Charles hasn't had time to decide how best to move forward...

 

[JR76]

The single biggest problem in comparing the continental monarchies to the UK is the population differences. Spain is probably the next biggest country in population to the UK but they are still much smaller than the UK. It is ridiculous to think that a country with the population of Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, or the Netherlands needs as many working royals as a country with the population the size of the UK.

That's true and that is why I wrote "the number of people they need to do the job properly". Different countries have different needs but most of the European monarchies seems to do just fine with in between 2-4 full time royals and with the support of some part time royals. That they've crunched the numbers to this level is both because of political decisions, because of the number of people they have available and most often a combination of the two. The UK will probably be needing a few more heads than this to be able to keep things going if they want to keep on working in the way they do now.

 

[Fijiro]

Camilla will be Queen Camilla. She is not a Princess, so if they want her to be "Princess Consort", they would first have to create her a Princess in her own rights. But as a Queen she is just a consort to the King.

She is a Princess, she is HRH THe Princess of Wales.. and a Princess by virtue of her marraige to Charles, who is a Prince.

Yes she is now a Princess by being married to Prince Charles, when Charles becomes King, he will no longer be a Prince, but a King. So then Camilla will no longer be a Princess, but a Queen. So to make her a Princess Consort, they would have to create her a Princes in her own rights.

 

[Denville]

Yes I think that Princess consort was a bad idea.. but they may stick iwth it. I dont think that anyone wil ojbect if its declared that she wants to be known as Princess Consort, even if it is not her official title.

 

[Lilyflo]

if that is the case, then the RF can manage fine with about 4 or 5 people.. so Charles, Camilla, flanked by Will and kate, will do the job Ok.... no need for anyone else

No there isn't but while Anne, Edward & Sophie are still working, it seems sensible to keep them on board and have a gradual paring down of royal engagements to fit the diminishing numbers. Princess Anne in particular has proven herself to be reliable, hard-working and committed to serving the country more than herself so people respect her and there are rarely any public grumbles about funding her staff or security.

 

[Mbruno]

This would definitely be a good idea, IMHO. I'm actually surprised a condition like this hasn't been introduced already. Although, it was maybe a case of not doing anything until there was a need. With Harry and Meghan moving to the US, the need has now arrived.

Introducing that condition in the succession law would require the same procedure that was needed to introduce equal primogeniture and the new royal marriages consent clause in 2013-2015. I don't think the UK and the Commonwealth realms governments would see that as a priority given all other more urgent issues they have to deal with right now.


I suspect Prince Charles still hopes Harry and his family will move back to the UK. Contrary to our perception, the bridges have not been burned yet.

 

[Denville]

Im sure Charles sitll hopes Harry will return but that is on a personal level

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Im sure Charles sitll hopes Harry will return but that is on a personal level

I agree. Things change but even if Meghan agreed to move back to the UK part time, I can't see Harry being able to return as a working royal for at least ten years - and that would be a stretch.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But if this is about whether Charlotte's and Louis's children will have titles, that could easily be kept quiet until those children come into being, which may not be for another 20+ years. [...] Though perhaps announcing it before they've had the chance to meet their future spouses might be wise, lest one of them marry someone who takes it as a personal slight and tries to claim it was based on antipathy towards them personally. It's hardly urgent, but if William and Charles and the Queen are all on the same page about it, maybe there's no benefit to waiting.

This could be easily done without stripping anyone. George V's LPs didn't strip UK royals of their titles if they no longer met the new criteria.

Given the allegations about race and this issue it won't be able to be dealt with until the next generation unfortunately without stripping people who have been HRH for 85+ years i.e. the Duke of Kent. What a nasty way to repay a lifetime of service and of giving up personal ambitions for the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester and Princess Alexandra.

Previously, I would have agreed. However, recent events have proven that even when "new" restrictions on royal titles were announced over 100 years in advance and already applied to numerous branches of the family (there are not only great-grandchildren but many grandchildren of British monarchs who currently are not known as Prince(ss)), false allegations about the reasons why a child does not carry a royal title will still be believed by many. Thus, they may as well do as they please as it is clear they will not be protected from such allegations regardless of when, how, and for which royals (there is no way of predicting what Prince Louis or his future wife might say in 30 years) the changes are announced.

 

[Denville]

I agree. Things change but even if Meghan agreed to move back to the UK part time, I can't see Harry being able to return as a working royal for at least ten years - and that would be a stretch.

I think the only way Harry would be able to become a working royal would be if as you say YEARS had passed or his marriage broke up. I don't believe that Meghan would come back unless she really had financial problems nad they needed to find a refuge.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In addition, I imagine there may be discussion of some sort of plan like we see in Sweden about those in the line of succession needing to be raised in the UK in order to remain in the line of succession. If the unthinkable were to happen and somehow Harry, Archie, and the new baby would find themselves much closer to the throne, it would not go down well with anyone for children raised in the US to suddenly be sitting on the throne.

[...] Would it apply to anyone besides H&M's and Lady Davina Windsor's children? [...]

Yes, it would likely apply to hundreds of people. By the terms of the Bill of Rights 1688 and the Act of Settlement 1700, the line of succession to the throne includes all of the heirs of the body (the term denotes, more or less, her legally acknowledged blood descendants, with the exclusion of descendants who were born out of wedlock and their descendants) of Princess Sophia (1630-1714) who are Protestant and have never been Catholic. (Note that marriages which required but did not receive the consent of the British monarch under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 were deemed void in British law, and as a result the descendants from those marriages were deemed born out of wedlock and are excluded from succession to the British throne or British peerages.)

I don't see Bea and Eugenie becoming half royals. Charles does not want to end up with other people to whom he will have to pay an allowance perhaps for the rest of their lives.. and I think that the 2 of them have long since lost any interest in being working royals.. They have their own jobs, are married, E has a baby. Why would they want it?

There are reasons why I do not expect the York princesses to become working royals, but marriage and children are not one of them. Most of the working royals, including the most active ones, are married and have children.

 

[Somebody]

If you read the Telegraph article, this is ALL to be done with the Queen’s approval. They are not going over her head, nor has such a Summit been scheduled yet. It’s not like it’s being held yesterday. I don’t see anything “breathless” about the reporting - this info didn’t come from a gossip rag. I don’t see how a meeting in which the future of the BRF is unwarranted or extreme. They DO have to figure out how they are going to deal with not enough working Royals for too many engagements/patronages

They were probably already planning a meeting like did when it was decided that Harry and Meghan were and would remain 'out'. However, it wouldn't have been prudent to do so while the Duke of Edinburgh was ill, so sometime next month makes a lot of sense to reevaluate where they are as a firm and how they want to move forward in these new circumstances.

The UK monarchy has one thing that the other European monarchies don't have - more realms. The Queen is not only the Queen of the UK but of 15 other realms. Sure that number will drop over time no doubt but still the monarch is monarch of 16 countries.

They are also head of the Commonwealth - a huge group of nations representing about one-third of the world's population.

To keep the Commonwealth together it is important that they are visited by royals from time to time. Can the monarch and heir and their spouses do that?

I agree that this is an important difference. It makes sense to have an 'additional workforce' to take on part of the royal tours. Currently, they have 3 generations (the queen, the heir and the heir to the heir); but if they would truly go back to only the monarch and the heir; they run the risk of being reduced to anywhere between 2 and 4 full-time royals for most of the time.

So, from my perspective it would make sense to keep the 'siblings' of the monarchs as much as possible - probably in a somewhat reduced role (but any other work they undertake cannot be one profiting from their royal status; several royals manage quite well to do exactly that). If they truly want to get out, they should decide so early on - before taking up a full-time working role.

If we look at the current situation and how things might evolve, that would mean a reduction in workforce that will pick up somewhat once George and his siblings are old enough to take on royal engagements.

It might look something like this (assuming that they remain more or less active until well into their 80s - as seems common practice for the BRF):
2020: 8 + 4 = 12 royals
Elizabeth, Charles, Camilla, Anne, Edward, Sophie, William, Catherine (main group)
Richard, Brigitte, Edward, Alexandra (support group)

2030: 7 + 2 = 9 royals
Charles, Camilla, Anne, Edward, Sophie, William, Catherine (main group)
Richard, Brigitte (support group)

2040: 6 + 3 = 9 royals
Charles, Anne, Edward, Sophie, William, Catherine (main group)
George, Charlotte, Louis (support group)

2050: 6-8 + 2 = 8-10 royals
William, Catherine, George & wife, Charlotte (& husband?), Louis (& wife?) (main group)
Edward, Sophie (support group)
OR:
William, Catherine, George & wife (main group)
Edward, Sophie, Charlotte (& husband?), Louis (& wife?) (support group)

2060: 6-8 royals
William, Catherine, George & wife, Charlotte (& husband?), Louis (& wife?) (main group)
OR:
William, Catherine, George & wife (main group)
Charlotte (& husband?), Louis (& wife?) (support group)

 

[Betsypaige]

They were probably already planning a meeting like did when it was decided that Harry and Meghan were and would remain 'out'. However, it wouldn't have been prudent to do so while the Duke of Edinburgh was ill, so sometime next month makes a lot of sense to reevaluate where they are as a firm and how they want to move forward in these new circumstances.

Well, exactly...and Philip did talk to Charles about taking care of the Queen and how he’s going to handle things going forward, both as head of the family and future king. I’m sure everyone will have input - it’s a good thing.

 

[Somebody]

She is a Princess, she is HRH THe Princess of Wales.. and a Princess by virtue of her marraige to Charles, who is a Prince.

She will no longer be a princess once Charles is king; that's the problem of making her a 'princess consort'.

 

[Somebody]

Introducing that condition in the succession law would require the same procedure that was needed to introduce equal primogeniture and the new royal marriages consent clause in 2013-2015. I don't think the UK and the Commonwealth realms governments would see that as a priority given all other more urgent issues they have to deal with right now.

I suspect Prince Charles still hopes Harry and his family will move back to the UK. Contrary to our perception, the bridges have not been burned yet.

And it would be a little weird for a succession law of for example New Zealand to require that you need to be raised in the UK to remain in line of succession...

 

[Denville]

She will no longer be a princess once Charles is king; that's the problem of making her a 'princess consort'.

yes we know but the truth is that Camilla is still soemting of a problem for Charles and I think that they have now gone bakc to the Princess Consort plan.

 

[Mbruno]

And it would be a little weird for a succession law of for example New Zealand to require that you need to be raised in the UK to remain in line of succession...

True, I hadn't actually thought about that! I am pretty sure republicans in some realms would see that as the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Claire]

I don't know much about what is going on in Wales - but I don't think there will be any problem with William and Kate getting Prince and Princess of Wales.


What might be interesting (as a point of conversation for discussion) is what will happen if Charles falls ill, or William falls in. Yes - line of succession and all, but it they need to decide regent rules or contingencies plans.




Then there is Scotland and the Commonwealth. Australia especially. What is the chances that another member of the family is picked instead of the heir of the sovereign as leader of the Commonwealth?

 

[Denville]

|I'd imagine with regard to the Commonwealth that they'd push for whatever senior royal was most interested in the job, and hope to have them elected as the head.

 

[stunking]

Trust is lost with Harry and his wife, no matter what anyone wants.

 

[Heavs]

yes we know but the truth is that Camilla is still soemting of a problem for Charles and I think that they have now gone bakc to the Princess Consort plan.

Is there anything recent to suggest that they have gone back to "Princess Consort"? Apart from low approval ratings.

 

[BriarRose]

Charles has already been voted as the next Head of the Commonwealth. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/20/prince-charles-next-head-commonwealth-queen

I know there was some discussion about rotating the Head in the future, but it was my understanding that alternatives were not from within the Royal Family itself, but representatives of each Commonwealth country. In other words, I don't believe there was any serious movement to name William or Harry as the future Head, skipping Charles.

Should Charles pass away before the Queen, I believe William will be voted as the next Head, or the rotation proposition will pass, and William would be the U.K. representative for the U.K's time of rotation. I do not think a different Royal will be voted as Head of the Commonwealth in William's lifetime

(I also think that the rotation scheme will likely be put in place someday, not so much under an anti-royalist statement, but as a natural evolution of the success of the Commonwealth's growth. And with a pared-down monarchy, it may greatly benefit William and George down the line to not be the sole Head of the Commonwealth.)

 

[Denville]

Is there anything recent to suggest that they have gone back to "Princess Consort"? Apart from low approval ratings.

I can't recall but I thought that they had taken the bit about Princess Consort off the webiste for a time and then it went back

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The flexibility requirement may well be the biggest barrier to part time royals. It all depends how flexible they’re required to be. The Royals having more distant relatives on essentially a zero hours contract and expected to be available for duties whenever asked isn’t going to work, since they can’t expect the employer of a part time royal to let them drop everything for an engagement at a moment’s notice (or to expect an employer to want to employ Charlotte or Louis’s future children on that basis.) It’s not good for their business and it won’t be good for workplace relations either. “HRH Prince(ss) X / Lord Y / Lady Z gets to come and go as they please.”

If it’s a case of the family member concerned having their diary set out for them far enough in advance to book annual leave if an engagement falls within their working hours, there’d be no problem (assuming of course that the family member does not get their leave allocated for them, as that could end up with others having to accommodate the part time royal.) If it’s as simple as part time royals being expected to step in at short notice at a time that it is known that they are not working from time to time, then that seems reasonable.

I suspect that even if members of the British royal family do not purposely trade on their status, they are for various reasons likely to work in elite jobs where flexibility will be freely available.

Even without proactive streamlining, the number of working royals was going to be reduced by attrition anyway due to the lower birth rate.

The birth rate in the British royal family has remained fairly steady over the past few generations. The Duke of Cambridge and the Duke of Sussex average out to 2.5 children apiece, but King George VI and his siblings (excluding Prince John, who died young) average only 1.8 apiece. Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Margaret have an average of 2.5 children per head, but the Prince of Wales and his siblings each have a 2-child family.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The single biggest problem in comparing the continental monarchies to the UK is the population differences. Spain is probably the next biggest country in population to the UK but they are still much smaller than the UK. It is ridiculous to think that a country with the population of Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, or the Netherlands needs as many working royals as a country with the population the size of the UK.

The population of Spain is approximately two-thirds the size of Britain's, not much smaller.

Japan, which also has a ceremonial monarchy whose royal family's role is to serve as a symbol of the nation, has double the population of the UK, but fewer working royals. They are also expected to slim down dramatically in the decades ahead.

Further out, there are republics such as China or the United States which have much larger populations than the UK, but choose to function without royalty or family members of the head of state working for "the firm".

The UK monarchy has one thing that the other European monarchies don't have - more realms. The Queen is not only the Queen of the UK but of 15 other realms. Sure that number will drop over time no doubt but still the monarch is monarch of 16 countries.

They are also head of the Commonwealth - a huge group of nations representing about one-third of the world's population.

To keep the Commonwealth together it is important that they are visited by royals from time to time. Can the monarch and heir and their spouses do that?

True, but there are also the connections with many other countries, that have been around for a long time and that the BRF clearly feels they want to maintain if possible.

That is true, but my understanding is that while the Spanish monarch is no longer the nominal head of state of former Spanish realms, Spain also maintains special relationships with many of its former colonies which is manifested in official visits and other interactions.

"And now, the public just does not want to support RFs with 15 members doing engagements.. "

There are 12 working royals as of today, 8 of whom are 70 or over. Of the remaining 4, 2 are in their mid-50s and two are 39.

In 20 years time, when George, at 27, may or may not be a full time royal, even in a best case, long-lived scenario, the Queen, the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra will be gone, leaving 9.

The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, will be in their mid-90s, Charles and Camilla and Anne will be in their early 90s, leaving Edward and Sophie in their 70s and William and Kate at 60 to bear the brunt of the work.

Even in 10 years time, with the Queen gone, the two Kents unlikely to still be doing more than a few engagements, if any, and the others in their eighties,
it will still fall to Edward and Sophie in their mid-60s and William and Kate at 50 to be front and centre.

Charles can do the maths too. How much slimming down do the media think he can do?

Even on a per capita basis, the reduced figures would remain higher than those of many other countries.

And, no, as we say periodically, there has never been an official
statement that he wants to slim down the monarchy.

I haven't seen any allegations about an official statement, nor would I expect one during this reign.