The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Curryong]

However the article goes on to say

‘It said 42 per cent of respondents say they would oppose the abolition of the monarchy after the reign of Elizabeth II has ended, including 29 per cent who would strongly oppose it.’

 

[Queen Claude]

Who conducted the poll for the New Statesman? The British monarch consistently gets higher support in surveys by reliable polling firms like YouGov, so I wonder if that is a scientific poll with a random sample, etc.

Are the polls you're referencing polls supporting the monarch herself, Queen Elizabeth, or the institution and/or concept of the monarchy. It is not unheard of for there to more support for an individual monarch / royal, than buy in for the institution / concept.

 

[MARG]

Coaches are used at State Visits, at Royal Weddings, at Royal Funerals, at the Trooping, at the State Opening of Parliament, at Garter Day, at Ascot race days so why would it not be used for THE most ceremonial State event of all?

because they are uncomfortlabe, very expensive to maintain and beginning to look out of date. Cars are being used now at royal weddings... so I think its possible that they'll give up using them altogether.....

Cars are used to convey the bride and her father, both commoners, to the church. Carriages are used for the royal couple when they return from the church. Even Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother arrived in a car whereas her daughter, Princess Elizabeth arrived in a carriage as did the rest of the royal family. Princess Anne, being royal, also arrived at the abbey by carriage.

As to the Coronation, while it feels a bit premature to be discussing it with HM still hale and hearty, it is what it is. The government of the day will have a huge say in how grand it will all be. It will be the premier tourist event in the UK for decades and the government, rather than seen to be seen scrimping and cutting costs to the bones, will be pushing the boat out, especially after Brexit and hopefully Covid.

It will be an occasion to celebrate the very best in British, the pageantry, the carriages that allow people to get fantastic shots at the new King and Queen and the BRF, the mounted escorts, military bands and the military route liners. The heads of all the Commonwealth Countries present and more than a few past, UK politicians, Heads of State and Ambassadors, etc.

In the words of the old Chinese saying "may you live in interesting times", we all are and it is dire and dreary and mostly pretty joyless so, come the event, being a pragmatist, when it come HM's funeral they will see her off in style. But, the Coronation of the new Monarch will be an opportunity to let rip with flypasts, brass and pipe bands, bunting and balloons. If that doesn't kick start or double commerce and tourism I don't know what would. It will also be a Commonwealth Celebration too so the Coronation will represent us too.

 

[LauraS3514]

Cars are used to convey the bride and her father, both commoners, to the church. Carriages are used for the royal couple when they return from the church. Even Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother arrived in a car whereas her daughter, Princess Elizabeth arrived in a carriage as did the rest of the royal family. Princess Anne, being royal, also arrived at the abbey by carriage.

.

Lady Diana Spencer and Miss Sarah Ferguson both traveled to their weddings in the Glass Coach, and TRH The Princess of Wales and The Duchess of York traveled back to BP with their new husbands in the State Landau.

 

[Heavs]

I think this is the best place to put this article, since it does impact the future of the British Monarchy. If it's not appropriate please move.

Sir Kenneth Olisa, the Queen’s first black Lord-Lieutenant of Greater London, said the answer to the question of whether the Palace supported the movement was “easily yes”.

In a segment about race on Channel 4 News, Sir Kenneth said that he had discussed the “hot conversation topic” with the Royal household as they tackled the question of how to remove barriers in society.

He also shared details of the debate over whether the Queen should visit Grenfell Tower in 2017 amid fears she might not be warmly received.

“I remember thinking as it all happened, it was quite scary. We didn’t know whether she would be booed or have things thrown at her, etc,” he said. “And when she got out of the car, all these people applauded.”

Sir Kenneth will make his comments on a special edition of Channel 4 News on Friday at 7pm, featuring an all-black presenting and reporting team, as part of a day of programmes by the broadcaster called Black to Front.

During a discussion of the BLM movement, Sir Kenneth said: “I have discussed with the Royal household this whole issue of race, particularly in the last 12 months since the George Floyd incident.

“It’s a hot conversation topic. The question is what more can we do to bind society to remove these barriers. They [the Royal family] care passionately about making this one nation bound by the same values.”

When asked if the palace supported Black Lives Matter, Sir Kenneth said: “The answer is easily yes”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...lack-lives-matter-movement-says-senior-royal/

https://archive.ph/9VOGy

 

[Durham]

BLM the movement is very different from BLM as shorthand for racial justice. I don't believe for a moment that The Queen would express support for the BLM movement.

I'm surprised the Lord Lieutenant said something like this.

 

[Durham]

Has this been posted already? Not sure. Nothing surprising really.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/be4vukhfxe/YouGov - Royal Favourability August 2021.pdf

Of course it just asks about the popularity of certain individuals rather than serious questions about the monarchy. But interesting enough in its own way as a snapshot of public opinion.

 

[Mbruno]

Has this been posted already? Not sure. Nothing surprising really.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/be4vukhfxe/YouGov - Royal Favourability August 2021.pdf

Of course it just asks about the popularity of certain individuals rather than serious questions about the monarchy. But interesting enough in its own way as a snapshot of public opinion.

Interesting to see that there has been a decline in the Queen's favorability ratings outside the margin of error.

What is the reason? Maybe the Queen not being seen very much in public anymore because of Covid and old age?

 

[Durham]

Could be.

I'm not sure really. Unless it's related to the York or even Sussex issues. People thinking she's been too soft with them.

 

[Blog Real]

Could be.

I'm not sure really. Unless it's related to the York or even Sussex issues. People thinking she's been too soft with them.

That might be why. But the Queen is 95 years old, there's not much she can do about these matters. It's a shame at this stage of her life that the Queen still has to deal with these matters. By now she should be living in peace.

 

[Osipi]

Could be.

I'm not sure really. Unless it's related to the York or even Sussex issues. People thinking she's been too soft with them.

The difference that I think a lot of people don't realize is that the Queen actually has two faces and two areas of how she has to deal with things and being just one person, what she does and how she reacts to things all get blended into one. She has the absolute right to be soft with her children as a mother and grandmother but she also has to put the monarchy first when it comes to those people and the monarchy and its "Firm".

I believe with the issues with both her son and her grandson, as far as the monarchy and the "Firm" go, she handled it all beautifully. She doesn't stop loving her family and expresses that no matter what, they're family members that are loved and cherished yet she stood fast and firm that their actions and the consequences had the repercussions that followed and has stood fast and not relented. She didn't play into the furor that followed except for a statement that said "recollections may vary". She's never said anything publicly about Andrew's troubles and woes and just decided it best that he be removed from any public duties representing herself and the monarchy.

She's taken her stand but with a loving heart. She's very adept of separation of her role as monarch and also her role as mother, grandmother and great grandmother. The more I follow HM, The Queen and how she acts and reacts, I see a woman that definitely *knows* what she's doing at all times and is able to separate public from private. That's a fine art in and of itself.

 

[Durham]

There are symbolic things she could do as monarch but presumably she won't because of her feelings as a mother/grandmother.

She would be supported I have no doubt by a great majority of British people if she made these difficult choices but it's all hypothetical. I suspect the next monarch but one won't be as indulgent.

 

[Alison H]

I wouldn't take too much notice of opinion polls. They only ask a small number of people. The political ones fluctuate all the time, and are still usually wrong at election time!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I wouldn't take too much notice of opinion polls. They only ask a small number of people. The political ones fluctuate all the time, and are still usually wrong at election time!

YouGov is a serious polling group which takes large sample sizes and weights its panel to be representative of the population.

Political polling naturally fluctuates given that political opinions fluctuate, but exit polling has predicted the results of all UK general elections of the last twenty years within a margin of twenty-two seats.

Interesting to see that there has been a decline in the Queen's favorability ratings outside the margin of error.

What is the reason? Maybe the Queen not being seen very much in public anymore because of Covid and old age?

While some declines might be within the margin of error, I think the fact that nearly every polled royal's favorability ratings have declined is suggestive of reasons which are more institutional than personal.

 

[Rayal]

That is a very interesting poll and I suspect its accurate to a degree. However, the question that comes to mind that can't be answered is 'How much does the yellow media sway opinions unjustly and without proof?'

 

[Durham]

I'd never heard the term yellow media before & had to look it up. I now presume it means tabloid or red top media in a British context.

Handsome is as handsome does as the old saying goes. Members of the rf often get the press they deserve. Although not always of course. And besides people aren't so gullible as to believe everything they read. Especially in tabloids. Anyway, there are so many sources of information these days that people have a bewildering variety of opinions to choose from.

There's a very obvious reason why HM is so personally popular. The way she conducts herself. It's a lesson some of her relatives could do with emulating.

 

[Blog Real]

Royal historian Robert Lacey, author of the best-selling Battle of Brothers, exclusively writes this week's PEOPLE cover story, offering insights on the state of the monarchy, the Queen's legacy in action, and William and Kate's eye toward their future on the throne.

https://people.com/royals/prince-wi...ocial-share-article&__twitter_impression=true

 

[Hans-Rickard]

Robert Lacey........The same man who a while ago stated that the future of the british monarchy was dependant on William and Harry solving their issues, now states that there is nothing to worry about as the British Monarchy has survived beheadings...... What’s his opinion next month ? :-D

He’s always making too much of himself and never misses a chance to bash Prince Charles, despite knowing damn well that he - not William, is the next Head of State.

Prince Charles has been working very hard and relived The Queen very well since his fathers death...

 

[victor1319]

and never misses a chance to bash Prince Charles, despite knowing damn well that he - not William, is the next Head of State.

The following is just my humble opinion, but it is good, that Charles is the next in line!

While Charles is an eco-head and organic farmer, William is very much focused on the climate and all - but leaves himself a gigantic ecological footprint! There are some edges and wrinkles which must be ironed out for the public not calling him a liar-pretender.

 

[Osipi]

The following is just my humble opinion, but it is good, that Charles is the next in line!

While Charles is an eco-head and organic farmer, William is very much focused on the climate and all - but leaves himself a gigantic ecological footprint! There are some edges and wrinkles which must be ironed out for the public not calling him a liar-pretender.

I agree with you, Victor. There is more to being a monarch than being popular for a certain issue that is a personal passion such as climate change and the environment of the planet is for Charles and William starting to come out strong with his own.

Experience is the best teacher and, for Charles, he's had years of learning from his mother and then gradually doing more and more as the Queen aged and slowed down. All aspects of the monarchy, over time, became more familiar to Charles in a hands on way and I feel he's more than ready to wear the Crown when the time does come. William, I feel, should have that same opportunity that Charles had to learn the ropes gradually as time passes.

This, I feel, is a blessing of the Queen's longevity. The ability for the heirs to gradually come into their roles over what the Queen, herself, experienced coming to the throne at such a young age.

 

[Mbruno]

.

This, I feel, is a blessing of the Queen's longevity. The ability for the heirs to gradually come into their roles over what the Queen, herself, experienced coming to the throne at such a young age.

There are definitely advantages in becoming King at 50 rather than 25, but ascending the throne at 75 may be as bad or even worse than doing so at a very young age.



Charles unfortunately is not very popular and I guess he would never be in any circumstance because of Diana, Camilla, or just his personality and how many people perceive him. Still, many former Crown Princes experienced a surge in popularity following their accession. I wonder if that would have happened to Charles too if he had become King at a younger age.

 

[Osipi]

There are definitely advantages in becoming King at 50 rather than 25, but ascending the throne at 75 may be as bad or even worse than doing so at a very young age.



Charles unfortunately is not very popular and I guess he would never be in any circumstance because of Diana, Camilla, or just his personality and how many people perceive him. Still, many former Crown Princes experienced a surge in popularity following their accession. I wonder if that would have happened to Charles too if he had become King at a younger age.

Regardless if Charles is popular and/or liked or has the experience to reign wisely, another advantage can be seen. No matter how you slice it, Charles' reign will not be a long one and I'd go as far as to describe his reign as a transitional one between QEII and WilliamV. This actually gives William a window to actually step into the role of the heir to the throne for a while and test the waters before catapulted into the top job. With a young family, I can imagine that skipping his father and becoming king is the last thing that William would want at this time.

The British monarchy moves like clockwork and there's a good reason why it does and that is what sustains it through decade after decade.

 

[travelguy]

On the 27th May 2024 when hopefully the Queen will be the longest raining monarch do we think there will be celebrations

 

[Claire]

I know that this is going to sound a bit odd - but it takes a while for a monarch to stamp their personality upon their reign. A lot of people will argue that we never really saw the Queen's father's reign - he continued his fathers and then war got in the way, and then ill health prevent anything further.
Charles and William are stamping their identity onto this reign and only history will tell if this is good thing or not. At the moment they are singing from the same hymnal - what happens in the future if they dont.
I am not too certain about the royals speaking as experts. I prefer them bring attention and providing the opportunity for experts to converse. When royals starts sprouting facts and start promoting some scientific quarter over others, it does make me worry.

 

[stunking]

Qe11

The difference that I think a lot of people don't realize is that the Queen actually has two faces and two areas of how she has to deal with things and being just one person, what she does and how she reacts to things all get blended into one. She has the absolute right to be soft with her children as a mother and grandmother but she also has to put the monarchy first when it comes to those people and the monarchy and its "Firm".

I believe with the issues with both her son and her grandson, as far as the monarchy and the "Firm" go, she handled it all beautifully. She doesn't stop loving her family and expresses that no matter what, they're family members that are loved and cherished yet she stood fast and firm that their actions and the consequences had the repercussions that followed and has stood fast and not relented. She didn't play into the furor that followed except for a statement that said "recollections may vary". She's never said anything publicly about Andrew's troubles and woes and just decided it best that he be removed from any public duties representing herself and the monarchy.

She's taken her stand but with a loving heart. She's very adept of separation of her role as monarch and also her role as mother, grandmother and great grandmother. The more I follow HM, The Queen and how she acts and reacts, I see a woman that definitely *knows* what she's doing at all times and is able to separate public from private. That's a fine art in and of itself.

I concur Osipi, wise woman she is.

 

[Roderick]

The following is just my humble opinion, but it is good, that Charles is the next in line!

While Charles is an eco-head and organic farmer, William is very much focused on the climate and all - but leaves himself a gigantic ecological footprint! There are some edges and wrinkles which must be ironed out for the public not calling him a liar-pretender.

What Charles and I think William now don't seem to have taken into account is that to do their jobs properly in 2021, they HAVE to undertake at least some travel in Britain and in the Commonwealth. They have to be seen to be interested and involved. That then can see them labelled as hypocrites when they lecture others about ecological footprints etc. This is exactly why they shouldn't be doing this AT ALL! The royal family supports, it is not there to lecture.

 

[duchessrachel]

I know that this is going to sound a bit odd - but it takes a while for a monarch to stamp their personality upon their reign. A lot of people will argue that we never really saw the Queen's father's reign - he continued his fathers and then war got in the way, and then ill health prevent anything further.
Charles and William are stamping their identity onto this reign and only history will tell if this is good thing or not. At the moment they are singing from the same hymnal - what happens in the future if they dont.
I am not too certain about the royals speaking as experts. I prefer them bring attention and providing the opportunity for experts to converse. When royals starts sprouting facts and start promoting some scientific quarter over others, it does make me worry.

It does make me worry, too. It has to potential to be perceived as political in some cases.

 

[Alison H]

I'm getting rather fed up of all the howling in some parts of the media every time anyone flies anyway. What do they expect them to do, travel by rowing boat? Or just never go anywhere at all? The main issue is industrial pollution, not planes.


It is definitely getting a bit too close to politics, though. Decisions on these issues have to be made by politicians and so, in essence, comments about them are political.

 

[Somebody]

Regardless if Charles is popular and/or liked or has the experience to reign wisely, another advantage can be seen. No matter how you slice it, Charles' reign will not be a long one and I'd go as far as to describe his reign as a transitional one between QEII and WilliamV. This actually gives William a window to actually step into the role of the heir to the throne for a while and test the waters before catapulted into the top job. With a young family, I can imagine that skipping his father and becoming king is the last thing that William would want at this time.

The British monarchy moves like clockwork and there's a good reason why it does and that is what sustains it through decade after decade.

Most other royals directly in line to the throne by the age of (almost) 40 would have been experiencing the role of heir for quite some time and have more than sufficient experience when in their 40s to step up to the role of Sovereign. In William's case, in the last few years he has been preparing to take over the role of Prince of Wales, while alternatively he could have been preparing for his true 'destination': becoming the monarch.

So, I very much agree with Mbruno that becoming monarch while in your 20s is not ideal at all but neither is doing so in your 70s or 80s. Somewhere in your 40s or early 50s seems a much better age. While few monarch would want to cut their reign short, if William becomes king at an 'acceptable' age, I wouldn't be surprised if he would abdicate at some point to ensure that George might succeed to the throne at a much younger age than his grandfather.

 

[muriel]

I'm getting rather fed up of all the howling in some parts of the media every time anyone flies anyway. What do they expect them to do, travel by rowing boat? Or just never go anywhere at all?

Very fair point.

It is definitely getting a bit too close to politics, though. Decisions on these issues have to be made by politicians and so, in essence, comments about them are political.

Current and future monarchs need to be careful not to get involved in party politics, i.e, supporting one political party over another. I do not see Charles and William's involvement in bringing awareness to environmental concerns a party political issue at all, so I am not concerned.