The Monarchy after Elizabeth II


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Court Circular. It is the daily record of all engagements by individual members of the BRF and is signed off by the Queen. (Births, Weddings, Christenings, Deaths/ Funerals are also recorded.) Engagements not recorded in the CC are regarded as unofficial.
The CC appears in newsprint in The Times, and ostensibly on the official online site, but the latter is absolutely shockingly inefficient.
 
Last edited:
:previous: And the kicker is that The Times requires a subscription to view the CC. Which I understand from a business perspective, but it would be so easy to set that one Times page so that the public could read the CC. As a "for the common good" gesture.

But it's The Times, so don't hold you breath on that.

And I am off topic, sorry Mods.
 
:previous: And the kicker is that The Times requires a subscription to view the CC. Which I understand from a business perspective, but it would be so easy to set that one Times page so that the public could read the CC. As a "for the common good" gesture.

But it's The Times, so don't hold you breath on that.

And I am off topic, sorry Mods.

The only Court Circular I go to is the official one at The British Monarchy site
https://www.royal.uk/court-circular

It's free :)
 
The problem with the online CC is that it is quite irregular in updating.

When I put up the update to 28th September later today I will have a list of 'missing dates' and id a number of those dates on which we know royals undertook engagements but can't know exactly what because the online CC doesn't keep up to date.

For example - the 22nd and 23rd September have no official engagements listed - that includes the opening of the IG for Harry and the engagements Andrew did in Brisbane (sorry Qlders - for you the visit of the Queen's second son warranted by received by the Governor and a church service and a visit to an art gallery but what he did on the other days - for Pitch at Palace doesn't rate - for the rest of us eastern staters this 'whirlwind' nearly two week tour rates even if the event wasn't in the capital city).
 
Last edited:
:previous:

As HM has said, and if I get this wrong please correct me, *She has to be seen to believed*......the monarchy in it's entirety as a whole has to be out there in all parts of the kingdom, not just a few places. If they hid behind the walls of the palace so to speak then people will wonder why are we paying for this, why do we need them, they cost to much money and so forth. Prince Edward and his wife are not major players yet people do show up to see them for they are representing the monarch and that is what people want to see. The younger generation today might not view this as something they want yet believe me as one gets older views change big time and a country's history becomes more important and if a person younger sees a member of the monarch at some event then they will remember that always and be more in tune to what is going on with the monarch as time goes by.

Being seen can take many forms, however, not only being seen in person at relatively small groundbreaking/ribboncutting/plaque unveiling events but in interviews, videos, etc. At the moment, I think a lot of younger folks respond quite favorably to seeing members of their royal family in ways that feel intimate to their generation: on the smartphones that feel like an extension of themselves. It will be interesting to see if, as you predict, those tastes change over time as they age...or if the manner in it is most effective and useful for Charles, William and George to "be seen" will be what changes.
 
Dman has written several posts about the younger generations of British royals and the modernization (reshaping) of the monarchy in the ''Meghan Markle: Future Duties, Roles and Responsibilities'' thread.

Here are some points from me:

The Queen as an apolitical monarch:
* Being driven in open cars from 1952 to 2012 (stopped doing it due to her age, but did it again in 2016 for her 90th birthday).
* Went on walkabouts from 1970 to 2012 (stopped doing it due to her age, but did it again in 2016 for her 90th birthday).
* Visiting and opening hospitals, schools, community clubs, factories etc (some of it as patron) - mostly from 1952 to 2012 (stopped doing much of it due to her age.
* Gives dinners, receptions several times a year from 1952 - present, but on a smaller scale after 2013.
* Does the annual stuff like the state opening, trooping, investitures and garden partes and the head of state things like the audiences.
* Gives unifying christmas speeches and other speeches without being political.
* Went on Commonwealth/state visits from 1953 to 2015 where she have helped to build friendships between countries (even been described as the worlds top diplomat).
* Celebrated her Silver, Golden and Diamond Jubilees to unify the UK.
* Celebrated her 60th, 80th and 90th birthdays to unify the UK.
* She has also supported and visited her more than 600 Patronages, but without taking a political stand - mostly from 1952 to 2012 (stopped doing most off her charity visits due to her age).

She has modernized the monarchy (and her mysterious role as British monarch) with documentaries such as the Royal Family (BBC/ITV 1969), Elizabeth R (BBC 1992), The Royal Family at Work (BBC 2007), The Diamond Queen (BBC 2012), Our Queen (ITV 2013), Our Queen at 90 (ITV 2016) and Elizabeth at 90: A Family Portrait (BBC 2016).
Also done it with the walkabouts (which I mentioned above), the BBC televised Children's Party at the Palace for her 80th birthday in 2006, her James Bond thing during the 2012 Olympics and with the pop concerts for her Golden and Diamond Jubilees + all the garden parties and receptions she has given during her long reign.

In addition to all that, she has comforted people when horrible things have happened (including the London bombings in 2005 and the awful things that happened last year).

And she's never been political (with the exception of the Margaret Thatcher stuff in 1986).

She has also always been very popular (even after Diana's death) according to polls.

What does all this tell us?

1. That she has obviously done something right.

2. That this is how an apolitical ceremonial constitutional monarch behaves and acts (also in modern times).

3. If Charles and William are wise (something I think they are), then they will do much of the same (and I don't think we will see many interviews from them after their successions to the throne).

Other family members: They have a freer role than what the monarch has, but they are part of an apolitical institution and the most important role of British royal family members with the style and title of HRH and Prince/Princess (except for Beatrice/Eugenie, prince/princess Michael and the Duchess of Kent) is to support the Queen in her role as apolitical Head of State and Head of Nation in the UK and her role asapolitical Head of State in the other 15 Commonwealth realms and in her role as Head of the Commonwealth.

Their other important role (if we can call it that) is to take on charities, but that is also in a way on behalf of the apolitical monarch. - Why? Because they do it as royal work (and therefore they must be very careful in not being political).

Charles: I like and admire him, and I agree with him when it comes to environment issues, but it's not wise for the heir to the throne to lobby political leaders on that or other issues (not that I think he does, but he is constantly accused for doing it), and he has to stopp writing letters to ministers (something I'm pretty sure he will do after his accession to the throne).

William: I'm a big fan of him, and I think the Heads Together campaign is a very good thing, but he, Kate and Harry must be a bit careful. - Why? Because it's a political issue, and they have received much criticism for getting involved in it (not only from the Daily Fail, but from serious pro-monarchy commentators).

Harry: Yes, much freer in his role than Charles and William, but he must start thinking before speaking and stop involving himself in political issues.

And then to the Meghan issue:
1. I like her.
2. But to openly say that she disagree with a thing isn't something she (as a member of the BRF) should be doing.
 
Last edited:
^ ABSOLUTELY spot on ^.

The very idea that an institution well nigh a THOUSAND years old, isn't able [or aware of the need] to modernise is absurd.
It does grate that many from a nation that fetishises a piece of legislation from 1776, and will not entertain the idea of a single word being altered, should think that the BRF are in dire need of 'new broom' to survive into the future.
Ms Markle is welcome here, but trying to 'do too much, too soon' is a path fraught with danger, and I hope she knows it..
 
I hope they all know it...the younger royals.


LaRae
 
^ ABSOLUTELY spot on ^.

The very idea that an institution well nigh a THOUSAND years old, isn't able [or aware of the need] to modernise is absurd.
It does grate that many from a nation that fetishises a piece of legislation from 1776, and will not entertain the idea of a single word being altered, should think that the BRF are in dire need of 'new broom' to survive into the future.
Ms Markle is welcome here, but trying to 'do too much, too soon' is a path fraught with danger, and I hope she knows it..

I agree - I think Meghan is a wonderful breath of fresh air in the BRF, and obviously makes Prince Harry very proud and happy.
I feel that if Brits can be accused of being racist - it's more to do with her being 'American', with a more extrovert and confident personality than they are used to in the BRF, than her being 'half-black', which I think isn't really much of a big deal on these islands.
She must be careful to 'know her place', to wait until she is married until she begins to state her ideals and plans, and to not to try to upstage more senior females in the BRF such as the Duchess of Cambridge, the York Princesses, or God forfend, the Princess Royal!
I really wish her well.
 
The only Court Circular I go to is the official one at The British Monarchy site
https://www.royal.uk/court-circular

It's free :)

Not true.

The Court Circular is a document that is issued daily during the week, except for public holidays to selected newspapers, including The Times AND is usually put up on the British Monarchy website.

The reason people have to refer to the version in The Times is that the online one, last year in particular, was so unreliable e.g. it never put up Trooping the Colour as an official event - didn't put up the entire day - but that day was in the print media where it has been since George III introduced the idea in the first place.

The 'official' count that is published each year is done by a man who uses The Times and has done so since the early 80s. He doesn't rely on the online CC which is just so hit and miss at times ... although so far this year it has been reasonably good, even putting up dates later that were originally missed (were in The Times on time but not put up until called out by this and other sites for the missing days).
 
^ ABSOLUTELY spot on ^.

The very idea that an institution well nigh a THOUSAND years old, isn't able [or aware of the need] to modernise is absurd.
It does grate that many from a nation that fetishises a piece of legislation from 1776, and will not entertain the idea of a single word being altered, should think that the BRF are in dire need of 'new broom' to survive into the future.
Ms Markle is welcome here, but trying to 'do too much, too soon' is a path fraught with danger, and I hope she knows it..

Totally, totally agree wyevale.
 
Irish Royalist....I've been interacting with Brits for years online (not just here) and a few in real life (including one as a boss)...honestly as an American I have never felt they were negative toward me because I was an American. I suppose there are anti-American Brits out there ...I've just never really run across one. I don't consider differing views on cultural/social issues to mean they are anti-American.


LaRae
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom