The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[A Tudor]

While I don't believe Charles will abdicate on his own, I do wonder IF he's met with overwhelming public dislike the palace officials (the people who actually run the British monarchy) will pressure him to give up his place in favour of a younger king.


Although the situations are quite different, I'm sure King Juan Carlos from Spain didn't plan to abdicate in favour of Felipe the way he did, but in the end it was for the good of the crown. Maybe if things turn as badly for the British monarchy Charles will be pressured to do the same.

 

[Mbruno]

While I don't believe Charles will abdicate on his own, I do wonder IF he's met with overwhelming public dislike the palace officials (the people who actually run the British monarchy) will pressure him to give up his place in favour of a younger king.


Although the situations are quite different, I'm sure King Juan Carlos from Spain didn't plan to abdicate in favour of Felipe the way he did, but in the end it was for the good of the crown. Maybe if things turn as badly for the British monarchy Charles will be pressured to do the same.

King Juan Carlos' situation was exceptional. He was involved in a major corruption scandal which he knew would become public eventually. The Spanish monarchy, for multiple reasons, is already shaky. If Juan Carlos had not abdicated, the survival of the monarchy itself would have been in doubt.

Belgium may be a better example. Albert was also caught in Delphine's paternity imbroglio, but, embarassing though as that was, it is ultimately a private matter that, in my opionion, would not have posed an existential threat to the Belgian monarchy. Nonetheless, Albert chose to abdicate enabling the accession of a younger, more energetic royal family (Philippe, his glamorous wife, and his lovely children), who are far more attractive to the media than old Albert and Paola.

 

[tommy100]

I really think it would have to fall to a government/PM to tell King Charles to abdicate, the Palace officials are all appointed by the Sovereign and Charles will likely bring a team with him. The days of appointing Courtiers for life or from the same families is not as much in play as it was - remember Charles and Andrew engineered the departure of the Queen's last Private Secretary Christopher Gedit because they didn't like him and thought he had too much power.

 

[Alison H]

Unless something unforeseen happens, there's no reason why Charles should abdicate. If he were to become ill, then that would be different, but I don't really see why age makes someone any less entitled to be the monarch. People have great respect for the Queen in her 90s, as they did for the Queen Mother - older people don't just have to be shoved in the corner so that more glamorous people can take over!

 

[Skippy]

I would not even want Charles to even consider abdicating or passing the throne in favour of William.
I like Charles - I find him interesting, he knows what he talks about and he's in a good place since his marriage to Camilla.
I am curious to how he would fill in his being King.

So, barring a terrible accident with far-reaching consequences or a disease, the talk of Charles abdicating/passing is, IMO, moot and non-existant.
He's lived for it and is better prepared than anyone, so go for it when the time comes!

 

[Mbruno]

Unless something unforeseen happens, there's no reason why Charles should abdicate. If he were to become ill, then that would be different, but I don't really see why age makes someone any less entitled to be the monarch. People have great respect for the Queen in her 90s, as they did for the Queen Mother - older people don't just have to be shoved in the corner so that more glamorous people can take over!

It is not just a matter of glamor though. The King is the Head of State. Although I have no doubt Queen Elizabeth II is still perfectly capable of fulfilling her constitutional obligations at the age of 95, we normally expect people in ordinary jobs to have retired by that age. Some public officials like judges for example and, in some countries, even university professors, are subject to a compulsory retirement age, normally 75.

Again, I agree it is not fair to call on Charles to renounce his succession rights or abdicate when he is King after diligently preparing himself for that role for 73+ years. I am not questioning either his ability to do the job. I am just pointing out that a system where the CEO of the Firm will frequently take over only when he or she is over 60 and won't step down until he or she is 90 may become increasingly less appealing over time.

Furthermore, other countries have shown that it doesn't necessarily have to be like that. We had recent examples in Europe of successful transitions to monarchs in their 40s (Willem-Alexander and Felipe) or early 50s (Philippe) via abdication. All of the above can reign for 30 years or so (counting from their accession) and step down when their respective heirs are still relatively young.

I don't see how that would hurt the monarchy or somehow diminish the status of the institution, unless you hold on to a vey old-fashioned idea that the monarch has a divine obligation to reign until his/her last breath. Even in the latter case, monarchs who derive their traditional mandate largely from religion such as the Pope or the Emperor of Japan have also abdicated.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Unless something unforeseen happens, there's no reason why Charles should abdicate. If he were to become ill, then that would be different, but I don't really see why age makes someone any less entitled to be the monarch. People have great respect for the Queen in her 90s, as they did for the Queen Mother - older people don't just have to be shoved in the corner so that more glamorous people can take over!

I fully agree. Persons who are elderly or "unglamorous", which is to say not conventionally attractive, already experience formidable inequities. It would be a step backwards to institutionalize these in the laws surrounding the nation's representative head of state.

Again, I agree it is not fair to call on Charles to renounce his succession rights or abdicate when he is King after diligently preparing himself for that role for 73+ years. I am not questioning either his ability to do the job. I am just pointing out that a system where the CEO of the Firm will frequently take over only when he or she is over 60 and won't step down until he or she is 90 may become increasingly less appealing over time.

Perhaps, perhaps not. As modern medicine improves and life expectancies increase, the average age of the population will continue to rise (and more of the elderly will be healthy enough to be active in society). That might be one reason to expect ageism to decrease at least slightly.

While I don't believe Charles will abdicate on his own, I do wonder IF he's met with overwhelming public dislike the palace officials (the people who actually run the British monarchy) will pressure him to give up his place in favour of a younger king.

Belgium may be a better example. Albert was also caught in Delphine's paternity imbroglio, but, embarassing though as that was, it is ultimately a private matter that, in my opionion, would not have posed an existential threat to the Belgian monarchy. Nonetheless, Albert chose to abdicate enabling the accession of a younger, more energetic royal family (Philippe, his glamorous wife, and his lovely children), who are far more attractive to the media than old Albert and Paola.

Felipe VI and Philippe succeeded their respective fathers because they were next in line under the rule of primogeniture and representation, not because they were younger or more physically attractive.

 

[Betsypaige]

Unless something unforeseen happens, there's no reason why Charles should abdicate. If he were to become ill, then that would be different, but I don't really see why age makes someone any less entitled to be the monarch. People have great respect for the Queen in her 90s, as they did for the Queen Mother - older people don't just have to be shoved in the corner so that more glamorous people can take over!

Yes, and Charles is extremely vital and strong...

 

[Mbruno]

Felipe VI and Philippe succeeded their respective fathers because they were next in line under the rule of primogeniture and representation, not because they were younger or more physically attractive.

They succeeded because their respective fathers abdicated the throne. Under the normal order of primogeniture and representation, both Albert and Juan Carlos would still be kings. Abdication, at least in Spain, is a separate constitutional provision, which has to be handled separately by a special organic law, as it was in JC's case. Other constitutions (in the Netherlands for example?) make it simpler by equating the (voluntary) abdication of the monarch to the demise of the Crown.


Obviously I didn't say that their right to succeed originated from their being young. However, a practical consequence of the abdication, among many others, is that the country is left with a younger king and, whether you consider that ageism or not,it is a consideration in the rationale for abdications. Several recent abdication speeches for example explicitly mentioned something along the lines of "it is time for a new generation to take over".

 

[Roslyn]

I think there is a lot to be said for abdication. The monarch is just the country's figurehead; the real business of running the country rests with the elected government and that remains unchanged. Abdication gives the monarch the chance to enjoy his or her latter years in relative peace and comfort doing what they really want to do like other retired people can after a long working life, and gives the heir and his/her spouse a chance to get out there and do the ceremonial duties and royal visits while they are young enough to be able to enjoy them wholeheartedly. The public gets to see a more active and more attractive royal couple and the country has a more vibrant and youthful face on the world stage.

It might take quite a while to achieve this sort of change in Britain though because the British royals do think they are rather more special than they actually are, especially with the religious connection to the monarchy there. It would require a substantial change of mindset. I imagine it would be harder for the monarch to step down when he or she believes they have the approval of their deity to stay in the job for life.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

It is not just a matter of glamor though. The King is the Head of State. Although I have no doubt Queen Elizabeth II is still perfectly capable of fulfilling her constitutional obligations at the age of 95, we normally expect people in ordinary jobs to have retired by that age. Some public officials like judges for example and, in some countries, even university professors, are subject to a compulsory retirement age, normally 75.

Again, I agree it is not fair to call on Charles to renounce his succession rights or abdicate when he is King after diligently preparing himself for that role for 73+ years. I am not questioning either his ability to do the job. I am just pointing out that a system where the CEO of the Firm will frequently take over only when he or she is over 60 and won't step down until he or she is 90 may become increasingly less appealing over time.

Furthermore, other countries have shown that it doesn't necessarily have to be like that. We had recent examples in Europe of successful transitions to monarchs in their 40s (Willem-Alexander and Felipe) or early 50s (Philippe) via abdication. All of the above can reign for 30 years or so (counting from their accession) and step down when their respective heirs are still relatively young.

I don't see how that would hurt the monarchy or somehow diminish the status of the institution, unless you hold on to a vey old-fashioned idea that the monarch has a divine obligation to reign until his/her last breath. Even in the latter case, monarchs who derive their traditional mandate largely from religion such as the Pope or the Emperor of Japan have also abdicated.

Thank you so much! You have said exactly what I was trying to communicate but you did it in a far more articulate way!

 

[Betsypaige]

I think there is a lot to be said for abdication. The monarch is just the country's figurehead; the real business of running the country rests with the elected government and that remains unchanged. Abdication gives the monarch the chance to enjoy his or her latter years in relative peace and comfort doing what they really want to do like other retired people can after a long working life, and gives the heir and his/her spouse a chance to get out there and do the ceremonial duties and royal visits while they are young enough to be able to enjoy them wholeheartedly. The public gets to see a more active and more attractive royal couple and the country has a more vibrant and youthful face on the world stage.

It might take quite a while to achieve this sort of change in Britain though because the British royals do think they are rather more special than they actually are, especially with the religious connection to the monarchy there. It would require a substantial change of mindset. I imagine it would be harder for the monarch to step down when he or she believes they have the approval of their deity to stay in the job for life.

I disagree. This sounds like the kind of thing people say to those they think ought to retire, even if those people don't want to. Who's to say what gives someone pleasure? Even if it's working? In Charles' case, I think he'd be miserable if he were essentially forced to abdicate; he's not someone who "relaxes" that much. He gets a great deal of enjoyment out of working. Obviously we don't have a monarch in the US, but we do have a President. As a kid, I had a thing for the Kennedys (still do) and used to think "wow, imagine having such a young, vital President; I wish I could have been around for that". LOL then I realized the 1960's were a terrifying time. But, point is, I got over that. I mean, yes, it was lovely to see a young couple in the WH like the Obamas, but not once did I ever think "wow, this President is so old; I wish we had a vital, exciting, flashy, young man/woman to replace him".

 

[Roslyn]

I disagree. This sounds like the kind of thing people say to those they think ought to retire, even if those people don't want to. Who's to say what gives someone pleasure? Even if it's working? In Charles' case, I think he'd be miserable if he were essentially forced to abdicate; he's not someone who "relaxes" that much. He gets a great deal of enjoyment out of working. Obviously we don't have a monarch in the US, but we do have a President. As a kid, I had a thing for the Kennedys (still do) and used to think "wow, imagine having such a young, vital President; I wish I could have been around for that". LOL then I realized the 1960's were a terrifying time. But, point is, I got over that. I mean, yes, it was lovely to see a young couple in the WH like the Obamas, but not once did I ever think "wow, this President is so old; I wish we had a vital, exciting, flashy, young man/woman to replace him".

I really wasn't thinking of Charles; he is only in his 70s and I know he thrives on work and spending long hours at it, of choice. I was thinking of Elizabeth, a woman who is now 95. 95! I have long thought that her vow at 21 to serve for life could be best put into practice by stepping down. Service can take more than one form. I am not suggesting a compulsory retirement age, though if an upper limit were to be fixed, 85 or 90 sound about right to me. The role does involve reading and understanding the contents of all those red boxes, and also a lot of other ceremonial stuff as well as providing advice to the prime minister, and I think it wouldn't hurt to bring younger eyes and a younger brain and fresh perspective to that role.

 

[TLLK]

I think there is a lot to be said for abdication. The monarch is just the country's figurehead; the real business of running the country rests with the elected government and that remains unchanged. Abdication gives the monarch the chance to enjoy his or her latter years in relative peace and comfort doing what they really want to do like other retired people can after a long working life, and gives the heir and his/her spouse a chance to get out there and do the ceremonial duties and royal visits while they are young enough to be able to enjoy them wholeheartedly. The public gets to see a more active and more attractive royal couple and the country has a more vibrant and youthful face on the world stage.

It might take quite a while to achieve this sort of change in Britain though because the British royals do think they are rather more special than they actually are, especially with the religious connection to the monarchy there. It would require a substantial change of mindset. I imagine it would be harder for the monarch to step down when he or she believes they have the approval of their deity to stay in the job for life.

I have similar feelings towards the subject of abdication. When it's voluntary the former monarch can now enjoy their retirement and proudly see their heir taking up the role they've been prepared for over the years. Former Queen, now Princess Beatrix and current King Willem-Alexander would be my personal examples of abdication. She can still be available for engagements and to offer advice to the new monarch and consort while enjoying a well deserved retirement.



And possibly she shares how happy she is enjoying her new role with her former peers including the one in the UK.

 

[Betsypaige]

I really wasn't thinking of Charles; he is only in his 70s and I know he thrives on work and spending long hours at it, of choice. I was thinking of Elizabeth, a woman who is now 95. 95! I have long thought that her vow at 21 to serve for life could be best put into practice by stepping down. Service can take more than one form. I am not suggesting a compulsory retirement age, though if an upper limit were to be fixed, 85 or 90 sound about right to me. The role does involve reading and understanding the contents of all those red boxes, and also a lot of other ceremonial stuff as well as providing advice to the prime minister, and I think it wouldn't hurt to bring younger eyes and a younger brain and fresh perspective to that role.

HM also enjoys doing her duties, so...?

I appreciate what you’re saying, I just think it’s a step too far for me...

 

[Kataryn]

When I reflect on who's a working Royal and who is not, I get angry because I feel the way women are treated within the family is very patriarchic and diminishing.
Just imagine Charles as the heir, Andrew as his "spare". Both marry and have two children, but the gender is reversed. Okay, Charles eldest daughter Wilhelmina would be the next queen. And his second daughter would probably become a "working Royal". But do you think they would sideline Andrew's sons? I don't think so. I believe they would have raised at least prince Beatus, Earl of Inverness to become a working Royal, probably prince Eugene of York as well. Just as it had happened with the Kents and the Gloucesters. And when The Princess Henrietta decided to move with her American husband to the US, everyone would understand it!!

 

[muriel]

When I reflect on who's a working Royal and who is not, I get angry because I feel the way women are treated within the family is very patriarchic and diminishing.
Just imagine Charles as the heir, Andrew as his "spare". Both marry and have two children, but the gender is reversed. Okay, Charles eldest daughter Wilhelmina would be the next queen. And his second daughter would probably become a "working Royal". But do you think they would sideline Andrew's sons? I don't think so. I believe they would have raised at least prince Beatus, Earl of Inverness to become a working Royal, probably prince Eugene of York as well. Just as it had happened with the Kents and the Gloucesters. And when The Princess Henrietta decided to move with her American husband to the US, everyone would understand it!!

Not quite sure I agree. Andrews "sons" would be as far from he throne in the scenario you described as his daughters are, and, IMO, probably just as unlikely to be working royals. The Kents and Gloucesters cousins were inducted to become working royals as, when the Queen succeeded to the throne, there was a real paucity of working royals of her generation. Outside of HM and Philip, there was only Margaret, who was probably not seen as hard working or dependable.

 

[Roslyn]

When I reflect on who's a working Royal and who is not, I get angry because I feel the way women are treated within the family is very patriarchic and diminishing.
Just imagine Charles as the heir, Andrew as his "spare". Both marry and have two children, but the gender is reversed. Okay, Charles eldest daughter Wilhelmina would be the next queen. And his second daughter would probably become a "working Royal". But do you think they would sideline Andrew's sons? I don't think so. I believe they would have raised at least prince Beatus, Earl of Inverness to become a working Royal, probably prince Eugene of York as well. Just as it had happened with the Kents and the Gloucesters. And when The Princess Henrietta decided to move with her American husband to the US, everyone would understand it!!

The system is discriminatory against women at its very core and this harks back to the feudal system and the doctrine of coverture where women were lesser beings and married women had no individual legal identity. Princesses were property to be traded to obtain benefits for king and country. Society had a hard time coping when a woman inherited the crown and royalty and aristocracy still discriminates against women in many ways: some overt, some more subtle.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Not quite sure I agree. Andrews "sons" would be as far from he throne in the scenario you described as his daughters are, and, IMO, probably just as unlikely to be working royals. The Kents and Gloucesters cousins were inducted to become working royals as, when the Queen succeeded to the throne, there was a real paucity of working royals of her generation. Outside of HM and Philip, there was only Margaret, who was probably not seen as hard working or dependable.

Neither the Duke of Gloucester nor the Duke of Kent started to be full-time working royals until the mid-70s by which time Charles and to a lesser extent Anne were already working royals. Margaret was quite hard-working in the 50s and 60s although less so by the mid-70s but Charles and Anne were to the forefront then anyway.

The Duke of Kent was serving full-time in the army until 1976, which is the earliest he became a full-time working royal.

When the Queen became Queen she had a work-force of 9 - The Queen, Philip, The Queen Mother, Princess Margaret, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, The Duchess of Kent and Princess Alexandra (within a year or so) and Princess Mary, The Princess Royal.

By the mid-70s she had The Queen, Philip, The Queen Mother, Charles, Anne, Margaret, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, The Duke and Duchess of Kent and Alexandra - 12. By the time the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent started the workforce had increased from the 1950s.

It is now 11 as well, although the Duchess of Gloucester and The Duke of Kent aren't that busy anymore. I am not counting Princess Alexandra who has only done one engagement since July last year - and that was Philip's funeral.

 

[Roslyn]

Attending a family funeral is an "engagement"?! They're a weird mob!

 

[Iluvbertie]

It is an engagement in the sense it is in the CC and other funerals are also included as are memorial services.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I feel we need to think outside the old box. Not counting how many "working royals" there possibly are but the core question: do we need "working royals" at al? And if yes: how many? The current Pandemic has shown that all monarchies simply go on, without princesses and princes cutting a ribbon here or unveil a plaque there.

And the urgence of having a fleet of "working royals" to manage the "workload" is countered when one sees bigger countries like France, Germany or Russia just going on even without a too visible First Lady. How is it possible that in these countries a new hospital, a new home for dogs, a new airbase, or an exhibition is festively opened without even one nicely dressed and bejewelled princess in sight?

 

[Blog Real]

I feel we need to think outside the old box. Not counting how many "working royals" there possibly are but the core question: do we need "working royals" at al? And if yes: how many? The current Pandemic has shown that all monarchies simply go on, without princesses and princes cutting a ribbon here or unveil a plaque there.

And the urgence of having a fleet of "working royals" to manage the "workload" is countered when one sees bigger countries like France, Germany or Russia just going on even without a too visible First Lady. How is it possible that in these countries a new hospital, a new home for dogs, a new airbase, or an exhibition is festively opened without even one nicely dressed and bejewelled princess in sight?

It makes no sense. A regime, be it monarchy or republic, is much more than inaugurating hospitals or schools.
Monarchies must continue, it is a valid regime.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I have similar feelings towards the subject of abdication. When it's voluntary the former monarch can now enjoy their retirement and proudly see their heir taking up the role they've been prepared for over the years. Former Queen, now Princess Beatrix and current King Willem-Alexander would be my personal examples of abdication. She can still be available for engagements and to offer advice to the new monarch and consort while enjoying a well deserved retirement.

And possibly she shares how happy she is enjoying her new role with her former peers including the one in the UK.

I don't think Charles truly wants to be King. When the time comes, Charles will accept the responsibility and become a good King but it will be a very, very sad time. Charles will be devastated by the loss of his mother. On the other hand, if the Queen were to abdicate (and she won't), she can proudly watch his coronation, just as he would be able to share that with William if he decided to abdicate.

A former monarch could be as busy as he or she wants to be. I could see Charles taking on the role the Queen Mother served for years but he could also decide to take it easy and enjoy his family.

 

[Denville]

Of course Charles wants to be King. He is the longest waiting for his "real job" of all the heirs in Europe. If he hadn't wanted to be King, he could have probably moved out in the 1990s when he wanted to marry Camilla, and taken up a role as "former POW" doing as much or little as he chose, but he DID want to be king..

 

[Mbruno]

I don't think Charles truly wants to be King. When the time comes, Charles will accept the responsibility and become a good King but it will be a very, very sad time. Charles will be devastated by the loss of his mother.

I doubt Charles doesn't want to be King. He has always been a man of ideas and I believe he wants to leave his mark in the institution, including reforming it. He cannot do it unless he is King one day.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I doubt Charles doesn't want to be King. He has always been a man of ideas and I believe he wants to leave his mark in the institution, including reforming it. He cannot do it unless he is King one day.

Let me clarify, I agree that he wants to make a mark but being King means that he will lose his mother. If British monarchs were to abdicate rather than rule for life, ascending the throne would be a much more celebratory event.

 

[Denville]

Let me clarify, I agree that he wants to make a mark but being King means that he will lose his mother. If British monarchs were to abdicate rather than rule for life, ascending the throne would be a much more celebratory event.

of course it will be sad to lose his mother, but Charles has alwasy IMO accepted that she'd never abdicate and he will regret her passing but will do his best as King and I doubt if he'll hand over to William.

 

[RandyDrx]

I don't see Charles abdicating either, but I think William might do it, just like Beatrix and Albert did back in 2013.

 

[Betsypaige]

I don't think Charles truly wants to be King. When the time comes, Charles will accept the responsibility and become a good King but it will be a very, very sad time. Charles will be devastated by the loss of his mother. On the other hand, if the Queen were to abdicate (and she won't), she can proudly watch his coronation, just as he would be able to share that with William if he decided to abdicate.

A former monarch could be as busy as he or she wants to be. I could see Charles taking on the role the Queen Mother served for years but he could also decide to take it easy and enjoy his family.

This isn’t a Charles thing, though. It’s the same way that William couldn’t ever “want” to be King as it would mean his father had died. It doesn’t mean that they don’t want to fulfill their duties of Kingship when the time comes.

I’m bothered by the notion that we should make decisions for other people and assume that what we think they want is actually what they want.