Where Does Everyone See The Monarchy in 50 to 100 Years?

[BeatrixFan]

Of course, the question of a Republic will come up in a matter of months. When they decide to give the English a Parliament, the whole question of the Uk, Europe and who governs us will be thrown up. Let us hope we keep on a steady keel until the referendum.

 

[Henri M.]

It surprised me that many posters forget what a monarchy is: it is a form of state. The form of state is -in most countries- fixed in concrete constitutions which are very hard to change. Popularity of the actual monarch is really not of such an importance.

Yes, the monarchy was restored in Spain, but that really was because the dictator kept Spain a monarchy with a vacant throne and he designated the present King as his Heir. For the rest it is a hell of a job to change a Constitution (and thus the monarchy).

For the rest: it is interesting to note that the world's most wealthy, liberal, modern and tolerant states often are 'oldfashioned' monarchies. States with a fantastic social security system. With legal regulations for gay marriages, abortions, women's rights. With a heavy -but equalizing- tax system. Which states? Danmark, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Luxembourg....

The only monarchy which could collapse, and not because people vote them away but because their realm simply cease to exist, is Belgium. That is, for now, the only eventual possibility we will all witness in the coming decade or two.

 

[BeatrixFan]

With respect, that's the clinical view. It's a form of state in definition only. In truth and in modern terms, it's a family raised above all others and given certain privelages which they must earn by facing extreme difficulties and slogging their guts out. The Queen is lucky - she is above criticism, not because she is the Head of State - but because she's a dear old lady who has worked for us tirelessly as the Head of State. It isn't about her legal role, it's about her emotional role and that's what people decide on. People make their decisions on their affections and emotions - not on legal terminology.

 

[crisiñaki]

I mean the UNITED KINGDOM not a kingdom?
I can't possibly imagine the country not being a kingdom, it's part of our identity, our culture, our way of life...
Maybe some Monarchs won't be good but people can kick them off and choose a better one but the country is a KINGDOM totally!
I hope I have made sense with my rambling

 

[Henri M.]

With respect, that's the clinical view. It's a form of state in definition only. In truth and in modern terms, it's a family raised above all others and given certain privelages which they must earn by facing extreme difficulties and slogging their guts out. The Queen is lucky - she is above criticism, not because she is the Head of State - but because she's a dear old lady who has worked for us tirelessly as the Head of State. It isn't about her legal role, it's about her emotional role and that's what people decide on. People make their decisions on their affections and emotions - not on legal terminology.

Still it will be a hell of a job to change the United Kingdom with an unpopular King into a republic with President Brown. Don't forget that an eventual not so loved monarch can be 'counterbalanced' by a hugely popular future monarch who is loved by the people.

Maybe the British public will be cold and distant towards King Charles III but they are over the moon with the lovely Prince and Princess of Wales and their cute little children.

The same happened in Luxembourg: the extremely distant Grand Duke was respected, but the Luxembourgians were in love with Henri and Maria Teresa.

In the Netherlands Queen Beatrix is more 'feared' than that she is loved. She is so formidable and holds so much power, that she is seen as the manager of Netherlands Inc. who holds the whip. But her son, the Prince of Orange, Princess Máxima and their two daughters have boosted the monarchy to alltime high ratings and the Queen is in their slipstream as 'the loving grandmaman'.

So there are periods of cold, distance and there are periods of deep affection and love. It counts for most monarchies.

The hugely popular Queen Juliana was succeed by the widely seen as arrogant, distant, aloof and cold Queen Beatrix. But maybe that was what the Dutch monarchy needed: bring back the formality and the regalness after the 'too informal' Reign of her mother.

The hugely popular King Albert II will be succeed by his son Prince Philippe, widely seen as dumb-and-dumber, clumsy, a wooden stick, with zero charisma. It is that Mathilde does camouflage it a little bit, but also this will be survived (when Belgium remains as a state).

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, you're assuming that Charles will be the unpopular one. Certainly Mr Brown would never be accepted as President - we don't even know if he'll be accepted as Prime Minister yet. Let's be honest. As long as we have a King who knows what he's doing then he'll do well however long or short his reign is. And Charles knows what he's doing. He certainly isn't as unpopular as some would make him out to be.

On the issue of a United Kingdom - it'll come to an end, I've no doubt about that. But let's keep it in perspective. The Republicans are a very very small minority who mainly rally the cause from their armchair. The Monarchists are plentiful and passionate. The rest don't care and just follow the flag wavers. The Royal Family isn't in any danger for a long time yet.

 

[Bella]

I think Tony Blair has tried to marginalise the monarchy and detach Britain from its heritage to an extent. If his successor continues down the same road, the monarchy could become quite irrelevant to younger people, and that would make it vulnerable.

I'm not in Britain but I work in the hospitality industry and have met/meet many British travelers. After seeing this question posted the other night, I made a point to ask them for their opinion. They all felt things would change considerably after the present Queen dies. And more ppl than not (I was quite surprised) felt the monarchy wouldn't be around in 100 years. As suspected, the younger ppl couldn't really care about the monarchy and felt the "people" shouldn't pay for them. The older ones reflected more on the past and how things haven't changed for the better.

 

[Royal Fan]

I Think anything is possible I Just want to be around long enough to see Charles as King I Think its high time they got rid of Blair and Got Gordon in but in the Long run im looking for a Monarchist Liberal Government or possibly Conservitive, I Think more young people should take an interest in The Royal Family its part of Britian it IS the U.K.

 

[Furienna]

I still have a hard time believing the Brittish will get rid of their monarchy.

 

[Madame Royale]

I'm not in Britain but I work in the hospitality industry and have met/meet many British travelers. After seeing this question posted the other night, I made a point to ask them for their opinion. They all felt things would change considerably after the present Queen dies. And more ppl than not (I was quite surprised) felt the monarchy wouldn't be around in 100 years. As suspected, the younger ppl couldn't really care about the monarchy and felt the "people" shouldn't pay for them. The older ones reflected more on the past and how things haven't changed for the better.

Britain's pay around $112 a year for their Monarch, so what's that..around 45 GBP when converting from AUD$ and 59 when converting from US$.

The cost of the Queen has also risen by 4% and now stands at a total of about $68 million (AUD$ conersion = 27,000,00O US$ = 36,000,000 GBP)

http://www.exposay.com/taxpayers-pay-about-112-a-year-each-for-queen-elizabeth/v/2455/

 

[Jo of Palatine]

The Monarchists are plentiful and passionate. The rest don't care and just follow the flag wavers. The Royal Family isn't in any danger for a long time yet.

The former monarchies of Europe lost their existence due to war or revolution or both. As long as no war is coming up with outer forces working against the monarchy and winning this war I see no end to the current monarchies as revolutions are nowhere in sight in Europe and the political systems are pretty stable.

Just imagine what kind of political work over years and years it would take to abolish the monarchy. Then there is always the possibility of legal action against this work of parliament. So it would take a real movement of the majority of the people to get rid of the monarchy - that's the only way. And I simply don't see that in Britain, I'm afraid.

Compared to any politician, even the most unattractive prince would look good because he is not "one of us" but a special breed. So far the British upper class has managed to keep the idea installed in the majority of people that they are something better than the others and the RF is the top of the upper class. As lomg as this view doesn't change, the monarchy is very, very safe. IMHO.

 

[Beatrice]

the next Coronation will look like Ive heard itll be scaled down but I Hope they keep all the pomp and what not.

When is the next Coronation?

 

[Madame Royale]

When is the next Coronation?

When HM the Queen passes and Charles becomes King. The coronation, itself, normally takes place a year or so later I believe but whether or no that shall happen wth Charles I'm not sure

Could it be sooner if he sought to have it moved forward?

 

[BeatrixFan]

The Coronation date is decided by the new Monarch, the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Cantebury. It may be delayed if Rowan Williams has a druid meeting on the planned day and could even face furthur delays by Tony Blair's wedding to a certain world leader.

 

[Opal]

Charles's reign is a speck of time on the timeline of the universe. Personally I feel it'll be too short to make a difference. It rests on William and I find the boy ghastly and a mistake - BUT if we do lose the monarchy, I shall simply move or declare myself Queen.

Hi Beatrix - I'm curious as to why you find Prince William "ghastly and a mistake". From everything I've read about him he sounds like a mature, well-rounded person. But maybe the press sugar coats everything. So I'm just wondering.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Personally, I find him to be a media bunny. He wants to please them but at the same time he tries to say that he loathes them. I find him extremely boring and lazy and he expects us to hail him as a marvellous asset to Britain because he's cuddled a baby at his birth hospital. I know I'm being terribly unfair, cruel and nasty but I don't see this boy as particularly good for Britain. I don't see that he's doing enough and I think that he's got no real purpose in life. He settles for what comes first and it's rather sad. Also, I didn't like the way he told us he wanted to be just like his mother. That was enough to put me off of him for life I'm afraid. So there we are.

 

[Tzu An]

I think Tony Blair has tried to marginalise the monarchy and detach Britain from its heritage to an extent. If his successor continues down the same road, the monarchy could become quite irrelevant to younger people, and that would make it vulnerable.

I agree and I can't understand why. It's stupid since the Queen has been working since she was in her mid twenties and Blair has only been in office (while for quite some time not as long as the Queen) for some time but he seems to have some irrational hatred of the monarchy and quite a bit of disrespect for the Queen.

 

[Opal]

Personally, I find him to be a media bunny. He wants to please them but at the same time he tries to say that he loathes them. I find him extremely boring and lazy and he expects us to hail him as a marvellous asset to Britain because he's cuddled a baby at his birth hospital. I know I'm being terribly unfair, cruel and nasty but I don't see this boy as particularly good for Britain. I don't see that he's doing enough and I think that he's got no real purpose in life. He settles for what comes first and it's rather sad. Also, I didn't like the way he told us he wanted to be just like his mother. That was enough to put me off of him for life I'm afraid. So there we are.

Oh... I see... thanks.

 

[Avareenah]

Personally, I find him to be a media bunny. He wants to please them but at the same time he tries to say that he loathes them. I find him extremely boring and lazy and he expects us to hail him as a marvellous asset to Britain because he's cuddled a baby at his birth hospital. I know I'm being terribly unfair, cruel and nasty but I don't see this boy as particularly good for Britain. I don't see that he's doing enough and I think that he's got no real purpose in life. He settles for what comes first and it's rather sad. Also, I didn't like the way he told us he wanted to be just like his mother. That was enough to put me off of him for life I'm afraid. So there we are.

I am not a particular Prince William fan. The only person I truly admire in today's monarchy is Her Majesty.

But to say William is a media bunny is inaccurate. He does not court media attention at all. Rather, he is pursued by it because of who he is. I see no evidence that because he cuddled a baby at his birth hospital, he expects to be "hailed as a marvellous asset to Britain". I don't know a huge amount about him but, by all accounts I've read, bar yours, he is regarded as an unassuming young man trying to come to terms with the unique position he holds, both now and in the future. He is just 24 years old and needs to be given a little time to mature and find his own style within the royal family -- one that suits him and the position.

I'm sorry, but you do sound "terribly unfair, cruel and nasty". William is just starting out in royal life -- give him a go.

 

[Avareenah]

50 Years from now I think William will still be king - he will only be 75 afterall.

In 100 years the monarch will be someone not yet born.

Unless something really drastic happens, such as a constitutional crisis pitting monarch against parliament I don't think the British people will get rid of the monarchy.

I don't think they will actually be monarchs of most of the countries overseas though, such as Australia. I suspect that Australia will be a republic within the next 5 - 10 years (as once the current PM retires or is defeated in an election we will have another referendum on the issue and a model will be put to the people that they can agree with). I wouldn't be surprised if the monarch stops being monarch of Australia before the Queen's 60 Jubilee.

I disagree with this. Australian voters rejected republicanism only seven years ago. While I believe one day Australia will become a republic, I also believe there is no serious talk now of abolishing the monarchy during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II -- even by avowed republicans. Australians respect the Queen and have made it plain they do not wish a republic at least until her reign has ended.

 

[BeatrixFan]

William is just starting out in royal life -- give him a go.

But already he's told us to "Call him William", he wants to be just like his mother and he isn't carrying out any proper engagements. He's more concerned with Kate's bra straps than the Crown and I just see misery and failure where his reign is concerned. Maybe in 10 years he'll have developed a personality and a little spark but at the moment, he's wet.

 

[Warren]

...and I just see misery and failure where his reign is concerned.

That'll just give you the excuse to refer to Buckingham Palace as 'Bleak House'.

 

[Bella]

Britain's pay around $112 a year for their Monarch, so what's that..around 45 GBP when converting from AUD$ and 59 when converting from US$.

The cost of the Queen has also risen by 4% and now stands at a total of about $68 million (AUD$ conersion = 27,000,00O US$ = 36,000,000 GBP)

http://www.exposay.com/taxpayers-pay-about-112-a-year-each-for-queen-elizabeth/v/2455/

I'm just telling you what British people I have spoken to have said. I have no say in supporting the RF as I do not live in England nor am I an English citizen living abroad.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Bleak House - I like it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I disagree with this. Australian voters rejected republicanism only seven years ago. While I believe one day Australia will become a republic, I also believe there is no serious talk now of abolishing the monarchy during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II -- even by avowed republicans. Australians respect the Queen and have made it plain they do not wish a republic at least until her reign has ended.

Actually Australians didn't reject republicanism as a concept in 1999. They rejected the form of choosing the president of their republic put to them in 1999.

All the polls at the time indicated that Australians wanted to be a republic but did not want that particular model.

When we get a PM who supports a Republic (either Costello or anyone in the Labor Party) I believe it will be back on the agenda and they will put a model to the people that they can and will accept. As we have an election scheduled for next year and Labor are ahead in the polls at the moment it is possible that they will win the next federal election. Some time during that term of three years they will begin the process again. Maybe not immediately but they will do it. It has been Labor Party policy for quite some time now.

 

[Furienna]

BeatrixFan... William is hardly older than what I am. I think it's too early to say if he'll make a good king or not yet.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Exactly. And if we can't tell, we assume he'll be ghastly. It's a British thing.

 

[Avareenah]

But already he's told us to "Call him William", he wants to be just like his mother and he isn't carrying out any proper engagements. He's more concerned with Kate's bra straps than the Crown and I just see misery and failure where his reign is concerned. Maybe in 10 years he'll have developed a personality and a little spark but at the moment, he's wet.

Those are fair enough comments. As I said, I don't follow William in the newspapers and couldn't care less about his romances. I will sit up and take interest when he announces "this is the one".

Many of the world's commanding personalities probably weren't that way at his age. He is in a difficult position. If he is too "royal", he will be accused of being out of touch with everyday people. If he is too "down to earth", he will be then judged as unworthy to be the future King of England. I still say give him time. He may never develop an arresting personality but that doesn't mean he won't be a good royal.

His training in the armed forces can only develop him further, in my opinion, and is a good thing. Hopefully, he will have more time for engagements/charities after that.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Isn't it interesting though that he has time to be Patron of sporting organisations but not children's charities or elder abuse charities?

 

[Madame Royale]

(either Costello or anyone in the Labor Party).

The day Uluru is covered in snow is the day Costello will get the job, and thank goodness for that!

A Federal Republic we shall become but not for some years yet, I'm sure.