The Monarchy after Elizabeth II

[jcbcode99]

I disagree--the Earl and Countess of Wessex do a great deal of charitable work. I would write the lists of the organizations they each are patron of but it would take too long.
Here is the Countess' list of 55 organizations (and please note how many children's organizations there are--she is very keen on working with children's needs and communication disorders):
The Monarchy Today > Queen and public > Charities and patronages > Search results

And the Earl of Wessex, just because he was never one to constantly have his name in the papers does not mean that he is unnecessary. He supports 49 organizations, mostly youth related. Here is that link:
The Monarchy Today > Queen and public > Charities and patronages > Search results

Remember, they do have a young child and until recently, did try to have careers outside of the royal family. I think they are a true asset to the Family.
As for the Duke of York, he supports 127 organizations. Here is the link:
The Monarchy Today > Queen and public > Charities and patronages > Search results

It seems to me that all the royals support important causes that cater to their individual interests and that many people benefit from their patronage

 

[muriel]

I appreciate that Andrew "supports" 127 organisations, but he certainly does not come across as either most qualified to support British trade, or somebody who appears most committed to it. It is through sheer hard work over a sustained period of time that the Press have stopped picking on Anne. Andrew still has a long way to go - not helped when he is regularly photographed eihter playing golf or being on holiday!

 

[jcbcode99]

Well, I have to say that I cannot disagree with you about Prince Andrew! I, too, have wondered how a man who was a Navy Pilot has the credentials to be the figurehead for supporting British trade. Interestingly enough, Princess Anne is very busy with her organizations, a lot of them being equine related.

 

[branchg]

Once he is King, I believe Charles will issue new letters patent limiting the HRH to the children of the Sovereign and the eldest child of the current heir to the throne. While I doubt Anne, Andrew and Edward will lose their royal rank, I think Beatrice and Eugenie will be required to relinquish it.

Harry will likely follow his uncle's lead and request his children not hold royal rank, but rather be styled as the children of a Duke. This will facilitate the notion of a downsized monarchy that is closer to a modern society.

It will be interesting to see what happens, but I do think the royal family needs to be limited in the future.

 

[Elspeth]

I think it'd be very unpopular for Beatrice and Eugenie to be required to relinquish their titles on Charles's accession. Maybe encouraged to do so at the time of their marriage or something, but we don't have a precedent of discarding royals just because of a change of monarch, and I don't think it'd be a good one to start. It looks insensitive and churlish, and for what it actually matters, I don't think it'd be worth the bad publicity as well as, no doubt, the hurt it'd cause Prince Andrew.

 

[love_cc]

The Queen's children are all doing a good job, but Prince Charles is the one who should lead the team in the future as heir to the throne. But royals all have their own spealised areas and they are a team. I agree with Branchg that the BRF needs to limit its size after Prince Charles asecend the thorne. His own family is the core royal family but other royals can retain their titles to support the royal family as a whole.

Prince Andrew is doing a good job,but he is a fun-loving person and I am glad at least he can enjoy his life because I always find Prince Charles used to be too serious and too sad.

 

[jcbcode99]

Are we discussing children and grandchildren losing their HRH? I totally disagree with that, if we are. As grandchildren of the monarch, they should have the HRH to use, if they so desire. The issue here is how many of them the Monarchy should be supporting. The HRH is hereditary, it can't be stripped away. Even the Duke of Windsor was accorded to his right to that (even if the Duchess was not).

 

[Missyjojo88]

I don't see the point in cutting back the HRH titles. The Kents and the Glos are not going to pass their royal titles down and their title will die with them. I argee that they may need to cut them back in terms of doing royal duties, but I don't think the Kents do that much royal duty in the first place to make much difference. The Kents do a lot of personal work, but since they are not on the civil list there's not that much that needs to be change. The Glos are not even seen much so its not a big deal to leave them alone and just cut back of their work. But I don't see the need to get rid of their HRH. I also disagree with the Princesses of York losing their title. What difference does it make when they are not able to pass down their titles in the first place? I do agree that they should be made to represent the monarchy in charity work and such, but let them have the title. However I do agree with cutting back the civil list. When all is said and done the only new HRH titles will be made for William and Harry's children so the HRH will be cut back dramatically by then assuming the Will and Harry don't have a lot of children.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't see the point in cutting back the HRH titles. The Kents and the Glos are not going to pass their royal titles down and their title will die with them. I argee that they may need to cut them back in terms of doing royal duties, but I don't think the Kents do that much royal duty in the first place to make much difference. The Kents do a lot of personal work, but since they are not on the civil list there's not that much that needs to be change.

The Kents are in their 60s and 70s so of course they are cutting back. They are, afterall, old age pensioners. The younger members of the Kent family are earning their own way.

The Glos are not even seen much so its not a big deal to leave them alone and just cut back of their work.

The Gloucesters don't do a lot of work but are also into the old age pensioner category. Again the younger members of the Gloucester family are doing non-royal work to support themselves.

With both families the Queen has been supporting them for many years now since the changes to eligibility to the Civil List was made. Any income these people get effectively comes directly from her personal wealth and not from the government.

But I don't see the need to get rid of their HRH. I

I totally agree here. Those that have the HRH from these families - The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent and Princess Alexandra - a total of 7 people have worked as royals throughout the normal span of their adult working life and are still doing so when many at their current ages have retired.

also disagree with the Princesses of York losing their title.

I am not totally sure I agree here as it will depend on what they do.

If they are going into some form of paid work where the HRH is used to gain benefits for the company then I would think it was inappropriate to have it but if they do community type work where the HRH is not used to benefit a company then there is no problem e.g. if they were teachers there would be no problem but if they went into a company that used the HRH as an advertising tool to gain customers I think they should lose it. If they do full time royal duties (and as the Kents and Gloucesters cut back will William and Harry be able to do ALL the work currently being done by 7 people - the Kents and Gloucesters) I suspect they may be needed to do so then I don't see a problem with them keeping it.

What difference does it make when they are not able to pass down their titles in the first place? I do agree that they should be made to represent the monarchy in charity work and such, but let them have the title.

I agree - they have grown up with the titles. They are still relatively close to the throne and who knows what the future may hold/

However I do agree with cutting back the civil list.

Which of the following people would you remove from the Civil List?

HM The Queen
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.


As these are the only two recipients of the Civil List I would like to know who you would remove.

The Civil List is really to cover the costs of the Head of State so surely some payment must be made to the person who actually does the job. I don't know of any country that doesn't make a payment to the Head of State do you?

When all is said and done the only new HRH titles will be made for William and Harry's children so the HRH will be cut back dramatically by then assuming the Will and Harry don't have a lot of children.

Assuming that William and Harry follow the lead of their father's family and have only one or two children each within 50 years there will only be about 8 with the HRH - William's two children plus the eldest son of his eldest son, Harry plus 2 and Beatrice and Eugenie. I am assuming no changes to the 1917 Letters Patent in this count and, of course assuming that William has one son at least and that that son has married and had a son to come up with this number. There are many variables to this hypothetical scenario but this is realistic IMHO.

 

[Missyjojo88]

Since the question was about the changes made after the Queen dies, I'm not saying to stop giving money to the Queen or any head of states. What I meant is that since there are a list of royals that get money from the civil purse, may be they might cut back on that. Of course the ones doing royal duties should get paid for their work, but I gather that they might come up with a way to cut back on those on the list who are getting paid. For example the Glos and Princess Alexander will most likely step back from royal duties once Charles come to the throne. They will head into the directions of the Kents who don't get money from the civil purse. That's what I meant by cutting back on the civil purse. And if the Princesses of York are not willing to do their duty as princesses they should just not get money from the head of states, but still allow to keep their royal titles. But I just don't think they should strip anyone of their titles.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Since the question was about the changes made after the Queen dies, I'm not saying to stop giving money to the Queen or any head of states. What I meant is that since there are a list of royals that get money from the civil purse, may be they might cut back on that.

There are TWO people who get money from the civil purse - the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh.

Of course the ones doing royal duties should get paid for their work, but I gather that they might come up with a way to cut back on those on the list who are getting paid.

But only TWO people are getting paid by the government NOW.

All the rest are paid by the Queen - she repays any money given to them by the government.

What happens is this - the government makes a payment of x pounds to various members of the royal family - effectively paying them a salary to do royal duties but... the Queen then repays that money to the government except for the money received by herself and her consort.

For example the Glos and Princess Alexander will most likely step back from royal duties once Charles come to the throne.

Why - there will still be a need for them to work if they want to and when Charles comes to the throne there will be at least one less royal to do the work currently being done. As Alexandra is already in her 70s she is naturally cutting back and will continue to do so as age takes it toll.

They will head into the directions of the Kents who don't get money from the civil purse.

The Kents, just like the Gloucesters get paid by the Queen not the government anymore.

The Duke still does many duties. It is his wife that doesn't.

Prince Michael gets his income from consultative work that he does not from the Queen but that is because he doesn't do that many royal duties anyway.

That's what I meant by cutting back on the civil purse.

I think you need to understand one thing - and I have already said it in this post and the previous one - only TWO people get anything from the civil list now so cutting it back isn't a real option.

And if the Princesses of York are not willing to do their duty as princesses they should just not get money from the head of states, but still allow to keep their royal titles. But I just don't think they should strip anyone of their titles.

They were never going to get any money from the government. If the Queen chooses to give them money from her personal wealth then she may do so but I suspect that if they don't do royal duties full time they will have to get themselves jobs that pay them enough to live, just like their cousins Peter and Zara - Peter works for a company and Zara is being sponsored to train full time for the Olympics - in time she will probably go into coaching in that area full time and I suspect that her younger cousins may do the same thing.

Too bad about all the charities and places that want to have a royal connection - in time there won't be enough royals working full time at being royal to actually do all the work in Britian, let alone around the world.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, part of the problem is that nowadays the royals don't have the pulling power that they did because for many charities, especially those which are looking for participation from young people, sports and media celebrities are more effective than minor royals. When the Kents and Gloucesters were younger, there weren't so many other options - if a charity wanted a real boost, it had to have a royal patron or president. These days that's somewhat less important, so the lack of royals might not be as much of a problem as it was.

When George VI first came to the throne the royal family was also rather small - Princess Mary was married to a commoner, the Duke of Windsor was gone (and George VI knew he was gone for ever, even if he didn't), and the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent didn't have children old enough to carry out duties. Then the Duke of Kent died and the Duke of Gloucester went off to Australia for a while. Apart from the King and Queen and Queen Mary, there were just a few assorted elderly royals like Princess Marie Louise to do charity work. The abundance of royals in the 1970s and 1980s was part of a cycle, not so much a normal state of affairs.

 

[jcbcode99]

I agree that we are getting ready to look at a bit of scaled back monarchy--but the Duke of York is not exactly old, and the Earl and Countess of Wessex will no doubt soon be taking on more royal duties. I think they'll be around a while. They've been raised to understand the importance of doing such work, and I believe they will instill that within their daughters as well. We cannot determine what the Princesses of York will do, but my guess would be that once they are married they will continue in the tradition of being patrons. After all, why have a grandmother who was Queen and an Uncle who is King if you're not going to be involved? Just because they aren't quite yet serious does not mean they will be derelict in their future duties (examples being both Charles and Andrew!). And, let's not write off the Kents and Gloucesters just yet. Nor, the Phillips children. As they mature they may well continue the model of service their mother has demonstrated for them.
Regardless of all of that--whether one wants to perform a service for the crown and become a patron of something is fine, and if they want to get paid that is fine as well--but if they don't want to be involved in that way thats' fine, too. But, the HRH is hereditary and should not be taken away if they choose to live a more private life.

 

[caterpillarandcat]

That country of "Great Britan" is belongst to the residents, and no one should take title of Queen, except for her current self and then to cautiously approach the topic, her daughter. It oughta be the Queens' kids' according to their age, and after them, then their kids, redundancy fastly approaching....a monarchy title is seemingly by bloodline then given title, not married in and make new. Commonwealth is important, heritage is equally recognized and given strength through unity in peace and decisions are eventually made regaurding topic for everyones best intrest. 'nuff typed`

 

[ysbel]

Well in the younger generation there are only four royals: William, Harry, Beatrice, and Eugenie. Beatrice and Eugenie can't pass down their royal title to their children so that leaves us with William and Harry as the only ones that can pass down their royal title to the next generation. Of the present royals outside the Queen's immediate family I think the Gloucesters are the youngest and they're not that young any more. Or it may be Princess Michael but she is no spring chicken either.

I think the current situation of excess royals will naturally become less severe over time.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Yes, digging up another one from the past...

All this talk of making the RF smaller seems quite silly to me. Of course all that Windsor/York/Kent/Philips mob are part of the Royal Family. What they should do is draw a distinction between the Royal (extended) Family, and the Royal (nuclear) House.

 

[Elspeth]

I'm not sure that most people would understand that sort of distinction. Some people think that a person has to have an HM or HRH in order to be royal, and some people think that all the Queen's relatives are royal whether they do royal duties or not. Most of my friends and relations in the UK still think the Gloucesters and Kents get Civil List income - somewhere along the line, the PR coming out of Buckingham Palace isn't as clear as it could be.

 

[Claire]

There is a lot of misunderstanding regarding the royals andb their money.
But I have to say that change is unaviodable. Charles likes to be seen as a man of the people and of change so I expect him to be at the fore, along with his cronies.
But yes, all of this is very speculative. We live in a very unstable world at the moment, people perceptions change with the morning headlines and one large bomb later, we might have the Kents on the throne.

 

[KingCharles]

I think the survival of the British Monarchy is set in stone regardless of adaptation to modern times or sticking to old traditions. The people proved a monarchy to be important when the Interregnum ended (Oliver Cromwell in power as Lord Protector instead of a King/Queen).
I, do think that the monarchy does need to establish a common ground with the general public. The fact that there is talk about survival is rather worrying as it kind of gives me the impression that a monarchy is no longer relevant. In some respects it isn't, but in others it is. I think the survival, politically speaking, because the monarch is a politician regardless of what conventions and parliament acts state. I know that in a constitutional monarchy, the King/Queen is meant to be politically neutral. This is impossible as a monarchy are hereditary political leaders. Before you think I am just rambling, there is some thought behind it. To survive the monarchy needs to have more political power. I know this will not happen because the power struggle between parliament and the monarchy has been greatly fought, and there is alot of history that goes with it, but that in my opinion is the only way they are going to seem ever more relevant in the coming decades. The majority of people believe that the monarchy do nothing, live in nice palaces and castles, and take the tax-payers money. I think a greater education about the monarchy is needed and as to why they are important, or not important, whatever the case may be to give people the real facts. I think that a monarch should either have power and be able to use it, or cut all the red tape and just say, "you're a ceremonial figurehead, end of story."
I think it's pointless in our British Monarchy for the Queen to have power to dissolve parliament as she pleases, send the armed forces to war, declare peace, grant pardons, choose her own Prime Minister, and still having to get approval from the politicians or the Prime Minister to do so. That is not real power so why mask it as though it is?

I think for true survival, there has to be a greater appeal rather a historical gate way to the past. We know our history, we know what happened and why things are the way they are today in the political sense, but if they monarchy are just acting as leaders or a national focus point, does anyone think they will survive?

 

[Elspeth]

I'm bumping this thread because I'm getting a bit alarmed at what I'm reading around the British forum.

Far as I can gather, there are a few members here who are still so disgusted with Charles and Camilla for having an affair while married/hurting Diana/getting married that they're going to become republicans at the end of this reign. There are also some (and this seems, worryingly, to be an increasing number) who see Charles as the last monarch in the Windsor tradition and are writing William off as a self-absorbed spoiled rich kid, and are going to become republicans at the end of Charles's reign. Many of our posters from Canada and Australia are ready to cut loose from the monarchy at the end of the present reign.

Erm - do we have any members here who see themselves as monarchists in the long term? Or are we really looking at a severe erosion of support for the monarchy which will play itself out in two acts and leave William as an irrelevant and unpopular king?

 

[Royal Fan]

Im a Monarchist long term Britian without a Royal Family Never!

 

[ada]

Although respect Camilla as Prince CHarles wife, and she's doing a really good job supporting him, I am not looking forward to seeing her crowned in Westminster Abbey

 

[scooter]

Yes ada, I agree. The choice of the Prince of Wales to marry his long time mistress has completely put me off the idea of him being King. With any luck QEII will live a very long time, and William with any luck will get a speech coach. He needs someone to held him with what will be a major portion of his role, which he's dead awful with (public speaking).
Elspeth, at the risk of being shouted at, on the occasion of Prince Charles' 60th birthday a poll commissioned re:Camilla being Queen vs Princess Consort had a 17% approval of the concept of Camilla being Queen. It's not just a few people. On this board, there is a very vocal Camilla Claque. That is not neccessarily a reflection of the rest of the population, where quite a few of us either get deleted or banned. Historically speaking, when a CP or monarch marries his mistress it is always poorly received...think Anne Boleyn.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Although respect Camilla as Prince CHarles wife, and she's doing a really good job supporting him, I am not looking forward to seeing her crowned in Westminster Abbey

I on the other hand have already told by boss that when the present Queen passes I am instantly going on Long Service Leave to fly to London to pay my respects (I keep $5000 in the bank at all times for air fare and a night or two's accommodation!!) and that I will be also going back for the Coronation of Charles and his lovely Consort Camilla. I do hope to see her crowned as she rightly should be being his wife.

As a woman who has taken the name of my husband on marriage, I think that to deny her the title that goes with being the wife of the King means denying the right of ALL women to take the title, style and rank of their husband. Unless the legislation did that I would be totally opposed and that would make be a complete republican (which as far as Australia goes I am now due to a range of factors but most particularly that antics of the younger royals who seem to have no sense of being royal in my opinion - whether that is a fact or simply an impression I have I obviously don't know but they have succeeded in making me believe that Australia would be better off without having any ties to any of them).

 

[Elspeth]

Yes ada, I agree. The choice of the Prince of Wales to marry his long time mistress has completely put me off the idea of him being King. With any luck QEII will live a very long time, and William with any luck will get a speech coach. He needs someone to held him with what will be a major portion of his role, which he's dead awful with (public speaking).
Elspeth, at the risk of being shouted at, on the occasion of Prince Charles' 60th birthday a poll commissioned re:Camilla being Queen vs Princess Consort had a 17% approval of the concept of Camilla being Queen. It's not just a few people. On this board, there is a very vocal Camilla Claque. That is not neccessarily a reflection of the rest of the population, where quite a few of us either get deleted or banned. Historically speaking, when a CP or monarch marries his mistress it is always poorly received...think Anne Boleyn.

So, to answer my question, does this mean you're becoming a republican when the Queen dies?

As far as people who don't support Camilla being deleted or banned for it, that's nonsense.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I see myself as a long-term monarchist. One reason for this is that the monarchy is one institution that differentiates Canada from the USA. I'm not anti-American, but I do think that it's important for neighbouring countries to keep their distinctions along with having friendly relations.

I'm bumping this thread because I'm getting a bit alarmed at what I'm reading around the British forum.

Far as I can gather, there are a few members here who are still so disgusted with Charles and Camilla for having an affair while married/hurting Diana/getting married that they're going to become republicans at the end of this reign. There are also some (and this seems, worryingly, to be an increasing number) who see Charles as the last monarch in the Windsor tradition and are writing William off as a self-absorbed spoiled rich kid, and are going to become republicans at the end of Charles's reign. Many of our posters from Canada and Australia are ready to cut loose from the monarchy at the end of the present reign.

Erm - do we have any members here who see themselves as monarchists in the long term? Or are we really looking at a severe erosion of support for the monarchy which will play itself out in two acts and leave William as an irrelevant and unpopular king?

 

[sirhon11234]

Well I'm a democrat but for Great Britain I am a monarchist. I'm not thrilled about the idea of Camilla becoming Queen but I can stomach it.
I sometimes get a sense that some people might only want Charles to be King just to see Camilla crowned.
I don't have high expectations for Charles' reign, his mother has done a tremendous job I wonder if he can live up to that.

 

[kimebear]

The only time I can see the dissolution of a monarchy is if it has outlived it's usefulness. Regarding the British monarchs, as long as they continue to work for the UK and represent their country's best interests, there is no reason for the monarchy to end, regardless of who the monarchs are.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Yes, and it's the same for the countries in the Commonwealth. Even though the Queen isn't here all the time, she's still our Head of State and is represented by the Governor General in Ottawa. This is a huge country up here, and I think that the Crown is one institution that unites us.

The only time I can see the dissolution of a monarchy is if it has outlived it's usefulness. Regarding the British monarchs, as long as they continue to work for the UK and represent their country's best interests, there is no reason for the monarchy to end, regardless of who the monarchs are.

 

[MARG]

Yes, and it's the same for the countries in the Commonwealth. Even though the Queen isn't here all the time, she's still our Head of State and is represented by the Governor General in Ottawa.

I'm it total agreement with you kimibear and mermaid.

I think the world is a scarey place, and getting grimmer by the minute and in times like these we can draw on a common history to look objectively at the future. The BRF, the House of Winsor, provides that to millions of people around the world. Strangely enough the death of the Queen and the coronation of Charles as King merely reinforces the fact that life goes on and we will survive, as will the monarchy.

Picture this: Prince Charles married his lover. Woe is we, shame and scandal in the family! I don't like his new wife so when the QEII dies I am going to become a Republican. So there!

OK. What does that mean? What is a republican? For that matter, what is a republic? I guess we mean a constitutional one, don't?

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican; should the judicial review be maximized.

Woe is we indeed! More elections, mega more elections and what is worse . . . . . more politicians! If the BRF is gone, we, like the mother country, are going to have to elect a President!

Right then, let's have a trawl through the "qualified" candidates, ousted politicians all. But wait, what about those retired senior not-very-civil civil servants? OK toss them is the pot and stir for 3 - 4 months and select "The Candidates". Politically backed and politically motovated each and every one. But who will pay for their campaigns you ask, we will of course, and the elections as well. And then, wallah . . . . . El Presidente!

I don't know about you but to me it is the stuff of which nightmares are made.

I don't have to worry about who is "finessing" the Queen, although I would love to be a fly on the wall if anyone was stupid enough to try. She swore an oath to do the best she could for her subjects. She has, and that includes giving us an heir of substance. He is a Prince, born to be King, not a candidate for sainthood, and therein lies the difference!