The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Osipi]

The problem is that pledging allegiance to the British monarch at the coronation ceremony would be incompatible with Harry's citizenship oath in the United States if he becomes a US citizen. Harry would also have to give up his British titles prior to taking the citizenship oath. I can't honestly see him doing that.

Basically, when you boil everything down to basics, Harry reciting an oath at his father's coronation is really not that big of a deal. Either he will or he won't. Whatever the situation is at the time of the coronation, it will be handled smoothly. By the time Charles is coronated, anything about the Harry situation will be old hat, old news and accepted.

No threat to the British monarch there at all.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Can I be a bit pedantic here?

People are not 'coronated' at a coronation. They are 'crowned'.

A coronet and a crown are two different items of headgear and Charles will be Crowned with a Crown.

 

[Osipi]

Can I be a bit pedantic here?

People are not 'coronated' at a coronation. They are 'crowned'.

A coronet and a crown are two different items of headgear and Charles will be Crowned with a Crown.

Dutifully noted! (checks off her learn something new today box happily).

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Duke wrote an autobiography in the 1950s:

https://books.google.com.au/books/about/A_King_s_Story.html?id=mmg0AAAACAAJ

Seeing from the reviews the autobiography apparently was nowhere negative for anyone in the royal family.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Duke wrote an autobiography in the 1950s:

https://books.google.com.au/books/about/A_King_s_Story.html?id=mmg0AAAACAAJ

I found it very whiney about his upbringing with unloving parents and a family that didn't like his chosen wife but otherwise it was rather a good insight into the workings of the royals at the time - such as the long Empire tours he did in the 1920s.

 

[sophie25]

I found it very whiney about his upbringing with unloving parents and a family that didn't like his chosen wife but otherwise it was rather a good insight into the workings of the royals at the time - such as the long Empire tours he did in the 1920s.

Well it's never been disputed that his father was a bully who actually boasted that his children were frightened of him, nor that Queen Mary was a remote mother who didn't challenge her husband. He wasn't being whiney it was just the truth, as was the fact that they didn't like his wife.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It didn't become 'public knowledge' that George V was a bully or that Queen Mary was a remote mother until this book was published.

The alleged comment that George V made about being scared of his father so he was going to ensure his children were scared of him was first made in this book.

It was Edward's whining about it that made it knowledge. We assume that because we have now known this for as long as we have that is was common knowledge when George V was alive when it wasn't.

 

[Queen Claude]

The Duke of Windsor's autobiography was published in 1951, 15 years after George V's death. While not common knowledge among the general public, George and Mary's parenting limitations were known among their inner circle and staff, so the information was going to come out, especially considering the manifestations were evident in their second son, George VI/Duke of York/Bertie, namely his stuttering and his physical and mental health issues.

I think if someone writes an autobiography or authorizes a biography while living, it will pretty much be considered airing dirty laundry.

 

[Mbruno]

Basically, when you boil everything down to basics, Harry reciting an oath at his father's coronation is really not that big of a deal.

It would be a big deal and a problem for him if he became a US citizen as the citizenship oath is quite explicit:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen [...]

In most cases, I think the United States follows a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but in a high profile case like Harry's and a public ceremony like a British coronation, I doubt Fox News, conservative talk show hosts and the usual suspects would let it go. Harry would be immediately called on an oath of allegiance to his father.

 

[muriel]

In most cases, I think the United States follows a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but in a high profile case like Harry's and a public ceremony like a British coronation, I doubt Fox News, conservative talk show hosts and the usual suspects would let it go. Harry would be immediately called on an oath of allegiance to his father.

I see the point you are making. If Harry chooses to become a US citizen, his role at his father's coronation will need to be carefully looked at.

 

[Denville]

He could just not go to the coronation... but that will look odd.

 

[sophie25]

It didn't become 'public knowledge' that George V was a bully or that Queen Mary was a remote mother until this book was published.

The alleged comment that George V made about being scared of his father so he was going to ensure his children were scared of him was first made in this book.

It was Edward's whining about it that made it knowledge. We assume that because we have now known this for as long as we have that is was common knowledge when George V was alive when it wasn't.

I didn't say it was public knowledge but it was the truth and I don't think anyone unhappy about being raised that way is being 'whiney' which suggests a person is complaining about nothing.

 

[Denville]

At the time, it was considered that failings in ones parents weren't to be discussed outside ones private circle.. Perhaps David had some grienvances but he behaved so badly himself and was a much more selfish person than his parents,

 

[Denville]

Th

I think if someone writes an autobiography or authorizes a biography while living, it will pretty much be considered airing dirty laundry.

Not always. And IMO its possible to write about family problems (within reason) without "airing ditry laundry." It all depends.. on the tone and what is said.

 

[Claire]

I think you can also need to look at the general mood of the public at the time, when the Duke of Windsor spoke of the harshness and unkindness of his parents, the world in general looked at him and laughed. They had been through the depression, a war and the greatest social upheaval ever. And there was a ideal that a man makes himself. Now there is a culture of victim worship in the world as well as an awareness of bucket psychology with everyone - that the parents make the child. It is a different world. And yes, today we blame the parents for the actions of their children more then at any time - rightly or wrongly.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Taking into account the hugely negative attention that both Andrew and Harry have brought to the BRF, is it more likely that Louis and Charlotte will now be expected to live their adult lives outside of the working BRF too?

I don't see why. The Kents and Gloucesters have never done anything wrong, and Princess Margaret never did anything that bad. Princess Anne is very widely-respected, and Edward and Sophie are popular now. Why should it be assumed that Charlotte and Louis will do anything wrong?

It is not about assuming they will do something wrong, but the impossibility of guaranteeing they will not (when Prince Andrew was 3-6 years old, I am sure no one predicted his current situation), and the mathematical fact that with a higher number of royals comes a higher probability that one of them will disgrace the monarchy. From that point of view, a smaller circle of "public" royals results in a safer monarchy.

But that approach also magnifies the risk if something were to go wrong with the eldest sibling. Suppose Andrew and Charles' birth orders were reversed, making Andrew the oldest son and Prince of Wales. Under those circumstances, there would certainly be calls for the throne to bypass Andrew and skip to Beatrice, which would probably satisfy most. But what if Andrew were childless and the monarchy had been "slimmed"? The throne would be passed to a sibling who had never carried out any public role.

I think there are two different categories of persons we are talking about in this discussion:

1) Junior princes who get an earmarked sum in the Royal Household budget such as Prince Joachim of Denmark, or Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent of Belgium.

2) Junior princes who do not receive a specific set amount from the State, but are reimbursed from the Royal Household lump grant when they perform official duties on behalf of the monarch. That is the case, as far as I understand, of Prince Carl Philip of Sweden (and previously his younger sister, Princess Madeleine), and I believe is also the case now of the Princess Royal, the Earl of Wessex and, previously, the Duke of York in the UK.

Whereas #1 is being phased out in most monarchies, I don't see #2 going away anytime soon. In the UK in particular, I don't see a scenario in the near future where siblings of the monarch will not be at least part-time working royals, and I don't see why Charlotte and Louis should be different when George is King.

Personally I am not a fan in particular of the Spanish model where the children of the King (e.g. King JC's daughters) are officially members of the Royal Family (and undertake official duties) while their father is on the throne, but cease to be so when their brother, the Prince of Asturias, becomes King himself. It is unfair on the Infantas, who are caught up between having a public role and building a private career, just to be ditched from official public duties later, and it is also a heavy burden on a young royal couple with underage children like Felipe and Letizia, who all of sudden have to shoulder pratically all royal duty alone, relying possibly only on aging parents/ parents-in-law.

I agree with all you have written. If it is untenable for Charlotte and Louis to be lifelong full-time royals, they should be allowed to secure paid employment, preferably while working part-time representing the monarchy, when they come of age.

 

[Alison H]

It's hard to know what's going to happen in the future. Suppose George doesn't have children, and then there's no "trained" heir.

 

[Claire]

I think it is way to early to say if Charlotte and Louis will or wont and of course their own wants been the most important.
I remember reading that people through it odd when Princess Alexander started as a fully time royal. Had her father not died, or the Duke of Gloucester married earlier she might not have.
Same with the Earl of Wessex. Edward was probably informed when he was about 22 that he was not needed in the family and needed to make the Marines a full time career. His nephews and nieces has been born. Both his brothers were married. So he was essentially told that was his route - and then he stopped going to classes and pretty much gave up. Was this what happened to the previous Duke of Gloucester and Kent as well? Were they told full life of military services as well.
Edward is only a working royal as Diana and Sarah didn't last - if both marriage had been in tack he would not have been welcomed back after attempting to work full time.
What I am saying is well George's path is clear cut at the moment. When Louis is off age - George and Charlotte might married and succession might be clear. If George is not married and Charlotte has decided to take another path - and he wants in - he might be allowed in.
There is no way we can forsee what might happen in the future. None.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The sisters of Queen Beatrix and the brothers of King Willem-Alexander never received any income from the State. But they were (and are) reimbursed for costs they made or make "for the execution of the royal dignity".

Of course all possible assistance is given on transport, accomodation, staffing and utilities when they "execute the royal dignity". This is a path all royals can go.

When James of Wessex works as a business analyst in the City, just a guess, and is requested by his uncle King Charles or his cousin King William to attend a State Banquet, I can very well see that all costs for James (and his spouse) are met by King's Treasurer. ("Just send the invoices, Sir").

 

[Denville]

That is the situation at present, that if royals who dont work full time for the Firm do engagements, they are reimbursed for expenses.

 

[muriel]

There is some speculation in the press about Andrew and Harry being potentially removed from the Counsellor of State roles

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-Andrew-Harry-two-four-Counsellors-State.html

 

[An Ard Ri]

There is some speculation in the press about Andrew and Harry being potentially removed from the Counsellor of State roles

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-Andrew-Harry-two-four-Counsellors-State.html

Interesting I wonder who would replace them?

 

[VictoriaB]

Interesting I wonder who would replace them?

Per the Regency Act of 1937, the next two in the order of succession over the age of 21 and domiciled in the UK - Beatrice and Eugenie.

 

[muriel]

Interesting I wonder who would replace them?

I think they would pass legislation to make the list of Counsellors of State as follows: Charles, William, Camilla, Catherine, Edward, Anne.

 

[Somebody]

It would make sense to remove them but not sure about all the implications of doing so. For Harry, they could argue that he is no longer domiciled in the UK, for Andrew that argument wouldn't work. And I don't think the fact that a foreign civil case is ongoing would be a valid argument (legally).

 

[muriel]

It would make sense to remove them but not sure about all the implications of doing so. For Harry, they could argue that he is no longer domiciled in the UK, for Andrew that argument wouldn't work. And I don't think the fact that a foreign civil case is ongoing would be a valid argument (legally).

There is no need to justify why they are being removed. Tt is clear they both no longer represent the Crown, and as part of that process, should be relieved of the responsibility of being Counsellor of State.

 

[An Ard Ri]

I think they would pass legislation to make the list of Counsellors of State as follows: Charles, William, Camilla, Catherine, Edward, Anne.

That was along the lines I was also thinking too.

 

[Somebody]

I think they would pass legislation to make the list of Counsellors of State as follows: Charles, William, Camilla, Catherine, Edward, Anne.

So, what generic legislation (that doesn't need to change each and every time depending on specific people) would you propose?

I notice a few possible requirements:
- Spouse of monarch (Philip was CoS)
- Heir & spouse
- Adult heir of heir & spouse
- Adult children of monarch (unless (unofficially) stripped from HRH/no longer working as senior royals - as otherwise it would be hard to argue why Andrew is not included)
- Adult children of former monarch

Under Charles that would be:
- Spouse: Camilla
- Heir & spouse: William & Catherine
- Adult heir of heir & spouse: -
- Adult children of monarch: -
- Adult children of former monarch (with some condition): Edward, Anne

Who should take up the 6th position in that case? Sophie (as spouse of highest child of former monarch who also uses HRH/is working senior royal)?

 

[muriel]

So, what generic legislation (that doesn't need to change each and every time depending on specific people) would you propose?

I notice a few possible requirements:
- Spouse of monarch (Philip was CoS)
- Heir & spouse
- Adult heir of heir & spouse
- Adult children of monarch (unless (unofficially) stripped from HRH/no longer working as senior royals - as otherwise it would be hard to argue why Andrew is not included)
- Adult children of former monarch

Under Charles that would be:
- Spouse: Camilla
- Heir & spouse: William & Catherine
- Adult heir of heir & spouse: -
- Adult children of monarch: -
- Adult children of former monarch (with some condition): Edward, Anne

Who should take up the 6th position in that case? Sophie (as spouse of highest child of former monarch who also uses HRH/is working senior royal)?

I am quite happy for the drafting to be left to the lawyers, but I would be inclined to go along the following lines:

- Heir and Spouse
- Adult Heir to Heir and Spouse
- Some or all of the the adult children of monarch and their spouses, domiciled in the UK, to be appointed at the discretion of the monarch

In the current situation, this covers C&C, W&C. And leaves the appointment of Anne, Edward, Sophie and possibly Tim at the discretion of the monarch.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There is a specific thread for the topic of Counsellors of State which may be useful.

Counsellors of State

Note that under UK law the Duke of Sussex will remain domiciled in the UK unless and until he forms a firm intention never to return there:

I am no expert on this topic, but per a British law expert:

Domicile denotes a more permanent association with a country and is generally determined at birth and will remain that country unless you resettle with a firm intention to live in a different country for the rest of your life. [...]

To change domicile, you generally must sever all ties with the UK. So the Revenue might consider you still to be UK-domiciled if you had moved to Spain but returned to Britain to visit friends or family.​