The Future of the British Monarchy 2: Sep 2022 -

[Marengo]

Arms of The United Kingdom​

Welcome to the thread The Future of the British Monarchy, Part 2

Commencing September 1st, 2022 ​

The previous thread can be found here
​

Please take a look at the
TRF Community Rules & FAQs
​

· Only pictures that you have written permission to share can be posted here. You can post links to any pictures.
· It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles, so no more than 20% of an article
text should be posted, along with the link to the original article.
· We expect our members to treat each other, and the royals and persons in these threads, with respect.
· The Report Post button is for reporting inappropriate content in a post if no moderators or administrators are online.
· Threads should remain on topic. Posts which are irrelevant or disruptive
will be deleted or moved by one of the moderators.

***​

​

 

[Alison H]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...med-down-monarchy-exclusive-poll-royal-family

A poll in today's Express shows that:
1. Most people support the monarchy.
2. Few people expect the monarchy to be abolished.
3. Most people think that Charles will be a good King.
4. However, most people support plans for a slimmed down monarchy.
5. A majority of people do not want Harry and Meghan to become working royals again.

 

[Durham]

None of the above would surprise anyone aware of public opinion in the UK. If The King were to seize the initiative & make decisions that some might not like he would undoubtedly carry public opinion with him.

Unlike most Express polls this one is believable because it's been conducted by a reputable polling organisation.

 

[royal-blue]

Who are the “royal hangers” that you speak of? Because as far as I am concerned no one apart from the King, Queen and Prince of Wales live in the palaces for free. Why do people insist on using this term?

I would like to see the BRF reduced to just 7 working royals who should be paid a generous salary for their work. I would like to see the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster handed to the government. All other members of the BRF (except William's kids) should be stripped of their titles and kicked out of the palaces. For example I don't see why someone like Princess Michael should be an HRH at all. All minor royals should become private citizens. The Wessexes and Sussexes have exactly the right idea by the example they have set with their own untitled children.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I would like to see the BRF reduced to just 7 working royals who should be paid a generous salary for their work. I would like to see the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster handed to the government. All other members of the BRF (except William's kids) should be stripped of their titles and kicked out of the palaces. For example I don't see why someone like Princess Michael should be an HRH at all. All minor royals should become private citizens. The Wessexes and Sussexes have exactly the right idea by the example they have set with their own untitled children.

First of all, there aren’t that many full-time working royals and they aren’t paid salaries, but expenses are paid for. Secondly, why should the Duchy of Cornwall and Lancaster be given to the government? Taxes are collected from those sources any ways and it’s not an ATM for royals, the incomes from the duchies helps pay for upkeep of Crown estates and for the Dukes of Cornwall. The Duchy of Cornwall provides an income for the Dukes of Cornwall and taxes on paid the income. Most of the late Queen’s descendants don’t have titles (Zara and Peter’s children don’t have any, Beatrice and Eugenie’s children don’t have any and their fathers title will revert to the Crown as their father has no sons, the Wessex children won’t be taking their HRH titles any time soon) and currently only William’s children have HRH titles and styles. Why should family members be kicked out of Crown properties? The Kent’s and Gloucester’s pay rent in Kensington palace and don’t t live for free so what would be the point? Their children don’t live there either and won’t have the HRH title and style and cease to be royal dukes. Their children are private citizens and have jobs, the Gloucester’s and Kent’s have jobs outside of the BRF and work. Princess Michael of Kent is an HRH via her husband not in her own right. The Wessexes and Sussexes have different reasons and circumstances for not having or using titles so they are not a good example. The minor royals don’t receive public funds.

 

[royal-blue]

First of all, there aren’t that many full-time working royals and they aren’t paid salaries, but expenses are paid for. Secondly, why should the Duchy of Cornwall and Lancaster be given to the government? Taxes are collected from those sources any ways and it’s not an ATM for royals, the incomes from the duchies helps pay for upkeep of Crown estates and for the Dukes of Cornwall. The Duchy of Cornwall provides an income for the Dukes of Cornwall and taxes on paid the income. Most of the late Queen’s descendants don’t have titles (Zara and Peter’s children don’t have any, Beatrice and Eugenie’s children don’t have any and their fathers title will revert to the Crown as their father has no sons, the Wessex children won’t be taking their HRH titles any time soon) and currently only William’s children have HRH titles and styles. Why should family members be kicked out of Crown properties? The Kent’s and Gloucester’s pay rent in Kensington palace and don’t t live for free so what would be the point? Their children don’t live there either and won’t have the HRH title and style and cease to be royal dukes. Their children are private citizens and have jobs, the Gloucester’s and Kent’s have jobs outside of the BRF and work. Princess Michael of Kent is an HRH via her husband not in her own right. The Wessexes and Sussexes have different reasons and circumstances for not having or using titles so they are not a good example. The minor royals don’t receive public funds.

I think that 7 working royals is a sufficient number. No they are not salaried but I think they should be.

IMO, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Harry, Meghan, Alexandra, Michael, Marie-Christine, D&Dss of Kent and D&Dss of Gloucester all either currently are, or should become, private citizens. They do not need to be royal. Why should someone like Beatrice have people curtseying to her or refering to her as "Your Royal Highness"? These people are superfluous to the work of the monarchy.

I think the income both Duchies provides is too generous. They do not need to be under the control of the BRF.

Regardless of whether they pay rent or not, the current number of occupied palaces is too high. After the BP refurb is complete, the King could be given a much smaller budget with which to fund the working family, travel and palaces.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I think that 7 working royals is a sufficient number. No they are not salaried but I think they should be.

IMO, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Harry, Meghan, Alexandra, Michael, Marie-Christine, D&Dss of Kent and D&Dss of Gloucester all either currently are, or should become, private citizens. They do not need to be royal. Why should someone like Beatrice have people curtseying to her or refering to her as "Your Royal Highness"? These people are superfluous to the work of the monarchy.

I think the income both Duchies provides is too generous. They do not need to be under the control of the BRF.

Regardless of whether they pay rent or not, the current number of occupied palaces is too high. After the BP refurb is complete, the King could be given a much smaller budget with which to fund the working family, travel and palaces.

They should be salaried to prove what exactly? What would be the point? The Kent’s and Gloucester’s have the titles and styles of HRH by virtue of the 1917 rules and most of them are or were working royals and are gradually retiring and their children won’t have the HRH titles and styles after their parents die. With all due respect, no one is bothered by the royals you listed for having titles and many of them have jobs and work. The Duchy of Lancaster helps pay for the upkeep of Crown properties and taxes are paid, the Duchy of Cornwall pays taxes as well so why should they be given to the government. Also the BRF don’t control the Duchies or own then personally. The minor royals don’t occupy many properties, the Kent’s and Gloucester’s only have smaller properties in Kensington Palace and pay rent, their children don’t live there.

 

[royal-blue]

They should be salaried to prove what exactly? What would be the point? The Kent’s and Gloucester’s have the titles and styles of HRH by virtue of the 1917 rules and most of them are or were working royals and are gradually retiring and their children won’t have the HRH titles and styles after their parents die. With all due respect, no one is bothered by the royals you listed for having titles and many of them have jobs and work. The Duchy of Lancaster helps pay for the upkeep of Crown properties and taxes are paid, the Duchy of Cornwall pays taxes as well so why should they be given to the government. Also the BRF don’t control the Duchies or own then personally. The minor royals don’t occupy many properties, the Kent’s and Gloucester’s only have smaller properties in Kensington Palace and pay rent, their children don’t live there.

Put more simply, I believe that the titled RF is too big and the perks the royal family get are too generous. Non-working royals do not need to be either HRH or Prince/esses. The Spanish royal family has the right idea. This is 2022. Status and privelegea should be earned, not just given at birth. The monarchy hasn't suffered by the withdrawal of Andrew, Philip, Meghan or Harry from royal duties. Nor will it suffer if the Gloucesters, Alexandra and Duke of Kent are put out to pasture either.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Put more simply, I believe that the titled RF is too big and the perks the royal family get are too generous. Non-working royals do not need to be either HRH or Prince/esses. The Spanish royal family has the right idea. This is 2022. Status and privelegea should be earned, not just given at birth. The monarchy hasn't suffered by the withdrawal of Andrew, Philip, Meghan or Harry from royal duties. Nor will it suffer if the Gloucesters, Alexandra and Duke of Kent are put out to pasture either.

What perks do the minor royals have? The BRF aren’t that big in number. The minor royals are gradually retiring so I don’t get your point.

 

[Erin9]

General Discussion about Royal Residences

Put more simply, I believe that the titled RF is too big and the perks the royal family get are too generous. Non-working royals do not need to be either HRH or Prince/esses. The Spanish royal family has the right idea. This is 2022. Status and privelegea should be earned, not just given at birth. The monarchy hasn't suffered by the withdrawal of Andrew, Philip, Meghan or Harry from royal duties. Nor will it suffer if the Gloucesters, Alexandra and Duke of Kent are put out to pasture either.

Put out to pasture? We’re talking about elderly people. I don’t see what possible difference it makes to not just leave things as is for what will be a few years.

Kicking people out of their homes and stripping them of HRH seems unnecessary and rather cruel. And frankly a poor PR move.

What do you mean status and privilege should be earned- not given at birth? That’s literally what the monarchy is.

 

[royal-blue]

In my opinion, the British monarchy can perform the exact same function and purpose with fewer working royals, fewer HRHs in general, a small reduction in residences, and a big reduction in its budget. The government should be responsible for the upkeep of palaces, not the BRF, which, together with a small reduction in royal engagements and a bigger reduction in travel and staff wages, the overall budget could be substantially reduced. I'm in favour of a salary for working royals, like the Spanish royal family.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

In my opinion, the British monarchy can perform the exact same function and purpose with fewer working royals, fewer HRHs in general, a small reduction in residences, and a big reduction in its budget. The government should be responsible for the upkeep of palaces, not the BRF, which, together with a small reduction in royal engagements and a bigger reduction in travel and staff wages, the overall budget could be substantially reduced. I'm in favour of a salary for working royals, like the Spanish royal family.

There aren’t many working royals and there aren’t many with HRH titles and styles. The money allocated to the BRF are mainly used to pay for upkeep of Crown properties and staff as well as travel. The BRF is not personally responsible for the upkeep, there is a committee that handles that and makes decisions on maintenance. Why should the expenses you listed be reduced? Why should the few working royals have salaries? The BRF already get scrutinized both necessarily but most unnecessarily on a number of issues.

 

[muriel]

Taxes are collected from those sources any ways and it’s not an ATM for royals, the incomes from the duchies helps pay for upkeep of Crown estates and for the Dukes of Cornwall. The Duchy of Cornwall provides an income for the Dukes of Cornwall and taxes on paid the income.

The incomes from the Duchies of Lancaster and Wales do not pay for the upkeep of the Crown Estates. The income from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall provide private incomes for the Soveriegn and the Prince of Wales. The fundamental idea behind the royal duchies is to provide an independent income for the sovereign and heir, so that they are never beholden to the government of the day for financial matters.

The income from the Crown Estates (c£300mn per year) is provided to the Treasury in its entirety. Of this, a Sovereign Grant of c15% of the income from the Crown Estates, subject to certain checks and balances, is provided to the monarch to cover their duties as Head of State, and to cover the maintenance of the royal palaces. There is an additional amount of c£300mn that is being provided over a 10 year period to finance the renewal of BP which was in need of urgent repairs.

A voluntary tax of 25% of the surplus of the incomes from the royal duchies is payable to the Treasury.

Why should family members be kicked out of Crown properties? The Kent’s and Gloucester’s pay rent in Kensington palace and don’t t live for free so what would be the point? Their children don’t live there either and won’t have the HRH title and style and cease to be royal dukes. Their children are private citizens and have jobs, the Gloucester’s and Kent’s have jobs outside of the BRF and work. Princess Michael of Kent is an HRH via her husband not in her own right. The Wessexes and Sussexes have different reasons and circumstances for not having or using titles so they are not a good example. The minor royals don’t receive public funds.

The monarch is the only member of the BRF that receives any funding from the government. This funding is the Sovereign Grant I mentioned. This covers the costs associated with being the Head of State, and the maintenance of the royal palaces.

Costs of other working members of the BRF (like Edward, Anne, the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent) are covered rivately by the Queen, using funds from the Duchy of Lancaster.

The Dukes of Gloucester and Kent do live either rent-free or pay a peppercorn rent for the homes they occupy at KP. This is because they are working members of the BRF. Prince Michael of Kent pays rent on a commercial basis for his apartment as he is not a working member of the RF.

 

[muriel]

I would like to see the BRF reduced to just 7 working royals who should be paid a generous salary for their work. I would like to see the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster handed to the government. All other members of the BRF (except William's kids) should be stripped of their titles and kicked out of the palaces. For example I don't see why someone like Princess Michael should be an HRH at all. All minor royals should become private citizens. The Wessexes and Sussexes have exactly the right idea by the example they have set with their own untitled children.

In effect that is that you have. Other than this, you have the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester who do carry out quite a lot of low key engagements on behalf of the Crown. Following a life time of service and given their age, the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra now only carry out very few engagements on behalf of the BRF. I would not be surprised if they soon retired.

 

[muriel]

Put more simply, I believe that the titled RF is too big and the perks the royal family get are too generous. Non-working royals do not need to be either HRH or Prince/esses. The Spanish royal family has the right idea. This is 2022. Status and privelegea should be earned, not just given at birth. The monarchy hasn't suffered by the withdrawal of Andrew, Philip, Meghan or Harry from royal duties. Nor will it suffer if the Gloucesters, Alexandra and Duke of Kent are put out to pasture either.

Let us not mix titles and perks. The titles are as a result of the 1917 Letters Patents. I can see severely limiting giving out new royal titles only to the main line, and children of future monarchs only.

I do not think HM will strip existing HRHs of their titles at this stage, but that remains to be seen.

 

[muriel]

In my opinion, the British monarchy can perform the exact same function and purpose with fewer working royals, fewer HRHs in general, a small reduction in residences, and a big reduction in its budget. The government should be responsible for the upkeep of palaces, not the BRF, which, together with a small reduction in royal engagements and a bigger reduction in travel and staff wages, the overall budget could be substantially reduced. I'm in favour of a salary for working royals, like the Spanish royal family.

I can certainly see some rationalisation of the royal properties to reduce costs, hence I had suggested they carefully evaluate whether to keep KP or not.

I'm in favour of a salary for working royals, like the Spanish royal family.

I do not support the idea at all. The Crown must be independant of the government of the day. They must not draw salaries or seek financing from the government at all. I think the current arrangement with the royal duchies and the Sovereign Grant works well.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I can certainly see some rationalisation of the royal properties to reduce costs, hence I had suggested they carefully evaluate whether to keep KP or not.



I do not support the idea at all. The Crown must be independant of the government of the day. They must not draw salaries or seek financing from the government at all. I think the current arrangement with the royal duchies and the Sovereign Grant works well.

To the first comment, it doesn’t matter if residences were reduced, the maintenance and upkeep would still have to be done.

 

[muriel]

To the first comment, it doesn’t matter if residences were reduced, the maintenance and upkeep would still have to be done.

Yes, but it would no longer count as a royal cost. A different government department (Dept of Culture & Media?) would probably need to find a use for the building and fund it.

 

[Lilyflo]

Yes, but it would no longer count as a royal cost. A different government department (Dept of Culture & Media?) would probably need to find a use for the building and fund it.

I agree and they could probably turn it into a profitable or at least self-funding property.

 

[Hallo girl]

Put more simply, I believe that the titled RF is too big and the perks the royal family get are too generous. Non-working royals do not need to be either HRH or Prince/esses. The Spanish royal family has the right idea. This is 2022. Status and privelegea should be earned, not just given at birth. The monarchy hasn't suffered by the withdrawal of Andrew, Philip, Meghan or Harry from royal duties. Nor will it suffer if the Gloucesters, Alexandra and Duke of Kent are put out to pasture either.

Not a very nice comment regarding the putting people out to pasture. People who are the grandchildren of a king and as a result obtained the HRH titles. Just like William and Harrys children are grandchildren of the monarch.

The Gloucesters and the Kents have devoted their lives to supporting the Queen, doing public duties when in any other walk of life they would have retired. The Duke of Kent struggles to walk but he still does his best, he would have been upset not to have been fit to follow the Queens coffin.

This is a pet hate of mine that these people are ridiculed because they are older.

 

[Denville]

yes, that is very unkind. THe Kents and Gloucester's have devoted their lives ot the Monarchy. why should they give up their jobs or their titles?

 

[muriel]

yes, that is very unkind. THe Kents and Gloucester's have devoted their lives ot the Monarchy. why should they give up their jobs or their titles?

I do not believe they should. I expect the Duke of Kent will do fewer engagements in view of his age, but I suspect the Gloucester's will motor on, unless told otherwise by the King.

 

[royal-blue]

Not a very nice comment regarding the putting people out to pasture. People who are the grandchildren of a king and as a result obtained the HRH titles. ...This is a pet hate of mine that these people are ridiculed because they are older.

Well Prince Andrew was put out to pasture and he was only 60.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Well Prince Andrew was put out to pasture and he was only 60.

Andrew lives on property that he pays a lease on and his royal duties weren’t that much compared to other working royals. Plus he’s not a working royal because of a scandal not because anyone thinks he’s a hanger on as you call it

I agree and they could probably turn it into a profitable or at least self-funding property.

Exhibitions and tours happen there from time to time? What could it be used for again?

Yes, but it would no longer count as a royal cost. A different government department (Dept of Culture & Media?) would probably need to find a use for the building and fund it.

Don’t government agencies already have properties that their offices are located on?

 

[Kataryn]

I do not support the idea at all. The Crown must be independant of the government of the day. They must not draw salaries or seek financing from the government at all. I think the current arrangement with the royal duchies and the Sovereign Grant works well.

The Sovereign Grant is so much smaller than the revenue from the Crown Estate it was exchanged for. As Charles only days ago at his proclamation as king declared, the Crown Estate should be used to help all people and that the Sovereign Grant will only be used to pay for the cost of his and the working Royals cost of representation. That of course includes allowances for them. The private costs will be funded from the two Royal duchys and the private belongings of the king.


It has been declared by experts that if the citizens of the UK decide to get rid of their monarchy, they face the fact that both duchies are the private property of the Windsors and that the government would have to give back the Crown Estate to the former king because it is still his to do with it as he wants and he gave it up out of his free will to the government but still owns the Cron's property as his private estate. It has been that for centuries and the inheritance laws at the base of the Crown Estate are still valid in today's Britain. To rid Charles Mountbatten-Windsor of his property, the government must rid all Britons of their private estate and one cannot imagine how this is going to happen!


The monarchy does appear to be based in ancient traditions but whoever wants to get rid of it will find out that these ancient traditions have led to very modern estates that belong to the Windsors and would be theirs in private possessions once the system of laws governing the monarchy is broken up and destroyed. The only things in Royal use that belong to "the people" are some palaces and the Crown Jewels, but when it comes to the "Royal collections" it is a good question who those works of art and jewellery belong to and most of it would revert to the king when the monarchy would be dissolved.



The old laws were mostly concerned about power and not property. It's only in the last 200 years that has changed and part of the Royal properties got into the Royal hold for "the people". But even here one could argue that it would be a break of faith if the goverment keeps it from the Windsors when all is split up. So I wouldn't see an end to the monarchy as an end to the costs

 

[Alison H]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...med-down-monarchy-exclusive-poll-royal-family

The latest opinion polls show strong support for King Charles and for the monarchy in general. They also show support for a slimmed down monarchy, but that will happen naturally: the Gloucesters will retire in due course, it doesn't look likely that either Louise or James will seek a public role, and there's very little support for Harry and Meghan coming back.

It's also been pointed out that politicians in general, of all parties, are not very popular at the moment. That's not unique to the UK, but it's seen as beefing up support for a constitutional monarchy above party politics. And I don't think people would be keen on the idea of working royals being on some sort of government payroll: it's never been done that way here.

 

[Lilyflo]

Exhibitions and tours happen there from time to time? What could it be used for again?

They already do some of the following but they could do more of them, more often eg corporate events, conferences, weddings, parties, meetings, film sets, exhibitions, public visits, concerts, award ceremonies ... plenty of options to bring in money to fund itself.

 

[victor1319]

The Spanish royal family has the right idea. This is 2022.

Hmm, but there was this story about the retired King of Spain, Juan Carlos, who took in hundreds of millions, if not two billion Dollar/Euro, as was estimated - dubious bribe money, arms trading! And he has not given back his loot until today.

So, the Spaniards are a questionable role model!

Besides: A King should be at least somehow a sovereign and not an employee!

 

[Moonmaiden23]

In my opinion, the British monarchy can perform the exact same function and purpose with fewer working royals, fewer HRHs in general, a small reduction in residences, and a big reduction in its budget. The government should be responsible for the upkeep of palaces, not the BRF, which, together with a small reduction in royal engagements and a bigger reduction in travel and staff wages, the overall budget could be substantially reduced. I'm in favour of a salary for working royals, like the Spanish royal family.

The elderly Royals such as the dukes of Kent and Gloucester were forbidden to have careers or work in "trade" during their young and most productive years. Instead they have spent their entire lives supporting the Crown and the monarchy.

To suggest that Princess Alexandra and all the other elderly family should now be "put out to pasture" in their vulnerable twilight is beyond cruel.

 

[Blog Real]

Put more simply, I believe that the titled RF is too big and the perks the royal family get are too generous. Non-working royals do not need to be either HRH or Prince/esses. The Spanish royal family has the right idea. This is 2022. Status and privelegea should be earned, not just given at birth. The monarchy hasn't suffered by the withdrawal of Andrew, Philip, Meghan or Harry from royal duties. Nor will it suffer if the Gloucesters, Alexandra and Duke of Kent are put out to pasture either.

The Gloucesters, Alexandra and the Duke of Kent dedicated their lives to serving the monarchy. It would be too cruel to be turned away now.
The decrease in the number of members working for the monarchy is likely to be done in the long run. And currently the only BRF members serving the monarchy are King Charles III, Queen Camilla, the Princes of Wales, the Earls of Wessex, Princess Anne, the Dukes of Gloucester, Alexandra and the Duke of Kent. Not many BRF members are working for monarchy.

I would like to know what support for the monarchy in the UK is like. Is there a large republican demonstration? How do you see the future of the monarchy in the UK?