The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Jacknch]

The Future of The British Monarchy

Here we can discuss the future of the British Monarchy including the Monarchy after Elizabeth II and the Monarchy under Charles and so replaces the https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-monarchy-after-elizabeth-ii-11874.html and https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-monarchy-under-charles-16252.html threads ​

 

[royal-blue]

Now that Charles's immediately family has expanded so much, I can now actually see the idea of Charles, William, Harry plus spouses, being the only working royals becoming a real possibility.

It would certainly keep the York family in particular from generating negative headlines.

The Cambridges and Sussexes have a vast potential for massively increasing their royal workload.

 

[Frozen Royalist]

Well here's an interesting thought I just had. If Britain were to abolish the monarchy before any of the Commonwealth Realms, as in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, what would become of the House of Windsor? Would they move to any of the Commonwealth Realms or just stay in Britain/England? Honestly I wouldn't mind the Windsors relocating to Canada in any event but what do you guys think?

I mean this does technically involve the future of the British Royal Family in the event of a abolishment so it is relevant to this thread right here. Plus look at it like this, it isn't like they'd have to have a referendum in the three nations I talked about because they are already the head of states there.

-Frozen Royalist

 

[Curryong]

IMO that would depend upon the terms on which the monarchy was abolished, on whether homes like Balmoral (in an independent Scotland) and Sandringham were still available, as well as on personal preference. I can't imagine the Queen wanting to go off and live in Italy or Romania for example but I can see Charles finding that option attractive. Harry and Meghan might choose Africa and the US.

If Charles or anyone else wished to go and live in Canada or Australia, (if they were still realms which I doubt,) it would probably require some consultation between Britain and the specific other countries. It could well be a bone of contention.

 

[suztav]

Happy to see the conversation in this thread. I, too, am curious as to the titles of Harry's children. It seems that Edward and Sophie established a precedent. It would be rather hypocritical for Harry's children to carry HRH's while people continue to berate Beatrice and Eugenie for having HRH titles.

To be quite honest, William now has 3 heirs -- Harry is not even a spare any more. JMHO.

 

[Mbruno]

Well here's an interesting thought I just had. If Britain were to abolish the monarchy before any of the Commonwealth Realms, as in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, what would become of the House of Windsor? Would they move to any of the Commonwealth Realms or just stay in Britain/England? Honestly I wouldn't mind the Windsors relocating to Canada in any event but what do you guys think?

I mean this does technically involve the future of the British Royal Family in the event of a abolishment so it is relevant to this thread right here. Plus look at it like this, it isn't like they'd have to have a referendum in the three nations I talked about because they are already the head of states there.

-Frozen Royalist

Abolishing the monarchy in the UK would have an immediate effect in Canada as the sovereign of Canada, under the Canadian constitution, is automatically the person who occupies the British throne under the UK laws of succession. As we learned from the Harper government during the debate on the Succession to the Crown Act, Canada properly does NOT have a law on succession to the Crown.

In other words, if the British laws of succession were repealed in the UK, Canada would in practice find itself without a Head of State until new constitutional arrangements could be put n place. Maybe something similar would happen in Australia, but I am not sure.

 

[Denville]

Happy to see the conversation in this thread. I, too, am curious as to the titles of Harry's children. It seems that Edward and Sophie established a precedent. It would be rather hypocritical for Harry's children to carry HRH's while people continue to berate Beatrice and Eugenie for having HRH titles.

To be quite honest, William now has 3 heirs -- Harry is not even a spare any more. JMHO.

?? Who "berates" them>? They are not responsibile for their titles, it is the normal title for a grandchild of the monarch, in the male line to have the title of Prince or Princess and HRH. Nobody is berating them for their titles. Edward and Sophie accepted lesser titles for their children because they and their children were far down the line and at the time, it was not expected that Ed and S would do royal duties. Even now, it is very very unlikely that james and Louise will be on the royal duty roster. However Harry's children probably will be....

 

[Mbruno]

?? Who "berates" them>? They are not responsibile for their titles, it is the normal title for a grandchild of the monarch, in the male line to have the title of Prince or Princess and HRH. Nobody is berating them for their titles. Edward and Sophie accepted lesser titles for their children because they and their children were far down the line and at the time, it was not expected that Ed and S would do royal duties. Even now, it is very very unlikely that james and Louise will be on the royal duty roster. However Harry's children probably will be....

Edward was 7th in line when he got married. Harry is currently 6th, so they are not that different in that respect.

 

[suztav]

?? Who "berates" them>? They are not responsibile for their titles, it is the normal title for a grandchild of the monarch, in the male line to have the title of Prince or Princess and HRH. Nobody is berating them for their titles. Edward and Sophie accepted lesser titles for their children because they and their children were far down the line and at the time, it was not expected that Ed and S would do royal duties. Even now, it is very very unlikely that james and Louise will be on the royal duty roster. However Harry's children probably will be....

Please! I’ve read posts on this Board where people talk about Beatrice and Eugenie as if they were no better than a housemaid. Those two are persecuted by the “nay sayers” . It’s positively disgraceful.

 

[LauraS3514]

?? Who "berates" them>? They are not responsibile for their titles, it is the normal title for a grandchild of the monarch, in the male line to have the title of Prince or Princess and HRH. Nobody is berating them for their titles. Edward and Sophie accepted lesser titles for their children because they and their children were far down the line and at the time, it was not expected that Ed and S would do royal duties. Even now, it is very very unlikely that james and Louise will be on the royal duty roster. However Harry's children probably will be....

You must have missed all the tabloids calling for Beatrice and Eugenie to voluntarily relinquish their HRHs or to have Charles strip them away when he is King. After all, Anne "refused" titles for Peter and Zara and so did Edward and Sophie for their kids so therefore why do "those Yorks" still have them?

 

[jacqui24]

Happy to see the conversation in this thread. I, too, am curious as to the titles of Harry's children. It seems that Edward and Sophie established a precedent. It would be rather hypocritical for Harry's children to carry HRH's while people continue to berate Beatrice and Eugenie for having HRH titles.

To be quite honest, William now has 3 heirs -- Harry is not even a spare any more. JMHO.

I'm one of the ones that thinks Harry will ask his children to be address as children of a Duke when the time comes, but why would it be hypocritical if they were to follow the LP? I haven't seen Harry berate Beatrice and Eugenie for their HRH titles.

 

[jacqui24]

You must have missed all the tabloids calling for Beatrice and Eugenie to voluntarily relinquish their HRHs or to have Charles strip them away when he is King. After all, Anne "refused" titles for Peter and Zara and so did Edward and Sophie for their kids so therefore why do "those Yorks" still have them?

I haven't seen any tabloid articles (I'm talking about DM, DE, DM and so on here) calling for the York princesses' titles to be stripped. It's rightfully theirs. Even if a new LP is issued changing the law to only grandchildren of monarch from the heir to be HRH, a provision is likely to be made for the York princesses to keep their HRHs. Especially given that's how their birth certificate and legal documents were issued. Now some do treat them unfairly by not allowing them to carry on a complete private life and make remarks about them, but no one has called for their HRH to be stripped anymore than they've called for monarchy to be abolished.

 

[jacqui24]

Edward was 7th in line when he got married. Harry is currently 6th, so they are not that different in that respect.

The caveat is that HMQ has four children with Edward being the youngest, while Prince Charles only has two sons. Harry will be featured prominently as a representative of the monarchy, much moreso than Edward, until George and siblings grow up. Judging by the way things were done with this generation, I don't expect them to take up full time duty for another 30 or so years.

 

[Al_bina]

The caveat is that HMQ has four children with Edward being the youngest, while Prince Charles only has two sons. Harry will be featured prominently as a representative of the monarchy, much moreso than Edward, until George and siblings grow up. Judging by the way things were done with this generation, I don't expect them to take up full time duty for another 30 or so years.

Featured prominently doing what exactly? Prince Henry can promote his causes. I do not think that he is capable of taking over Prince Andrew's delicate assignments.

 

[Madame Verseau]

I think Charles would like to have his grandchildren have HRH. The rules changed when Camilla married in and again when Kate joined the Firm. Will the rules change now that Meghan is in and Jack will soon join?

 

[jacqui24]

Featured prominently doing what exactly? Prince Henry can promote his causes. I do not think that he is capable of taking over Prince Andrew's delicate assignments.

Representing the crown. And aren't all of their assignments causes? And let's not act like Andrew has been some great promoter of projects. The publicity disaster resulting from his role as trade ambassador and that interview with The Sunday Times regarding innovation and palace hasn't exactly been great representation of "delicate" assignments.

 

[jacqui24]

I think Charles would like to have his grandchildren have HRH. The rules changed when Camilla married in and again when Kate joined the Firm. Will the rules change now that Meghan is in and Jack will soon join?

I think Charles would defer to his son on this simply because he's well aware Harry's children will be private citizens.

And what rules are you referring to?

 

[Rudolph]

I think one of the first things Charles will do as king is issue a new LP ‘updating’ royal styles and titles.

1917 was a long time ago. Public attitudes change. I think the days of having a royal title just for the sake of it are over.

 

[jacqui24]

I think one of the first things Charles will do as king is issue a new LP ‘updating’ royal styles and titles.

1917 was a long time ago. Public attitudes change. I think the days of having a royal title just for the sake of it are over.

I don't think we'll see Charles do it. Just because while he has some very progressive ideas, I still see him as more of a traditionalist when it comes to things like that. Just like the Queen didn't. He will issue a will, but that's about it. We might see that change when it comes to William's turn. Quite frankly, even then, I wouldn't bet my last dollar on it. I think it'd be a bit awkward until all the HRH that's only a grandchild of a monarch has passed away.

 

[Rudolph]

I think Charles has proven to be very pragmatic when it comes to monarchy. It was Charles who gave the British people the term ‘princess consort’. For no other reason than he thought it was good PR. If he’s willing to not have Camilla styled as Queen, limiting HRH is a piece of cake.

I have almost no doubt he’ll limit royal styles and titles during his reign. Plus it allows him to put his own stamp on things after probably 70 years of his mother as sovereign.

 

[Al_bina]

Representing the crown. And aren't all of their assignments causes? And let's not act like Andrew has been some great promoter of projects. The publicity disaster resulting from his role as trade ambassador and that interview with The Sunday Times regarding innovation and palace hasn't exactly been great representation of "delicate" assignments.

One has no idea what Prince Andrew's delicate assignments are. Well ... Prince Henry can be busy with his causes and other things representing the Crown.

 

[jacqui24]

I think Charles has proven to be very pragmatic when it comes to monarchy. It was Charles who gave the British people the term ‘princess consort’. For no other reason than he thought it was good PR. If he’s willing to not have Camilla styled as Queen, limiting HRH is a piece of cake.

I have almost no doubt he’ll limit royal styles and titles during his reign. Plus it allows him to put his own stamp on things after probably 70 years of his mother as sovereign.

There has been a debate as to what will Camilla be called. I believe the part about her being known as Princess Consort has been removed from the website. He had no choice really back then. But things change. I remember Richard Palmer and other reporters reporting on the issue and submitting that question to the Palace, but was not given an answer.

And really, if he's willing to risk naming his highly unpopular wife as Queen after explicitly stating she'll be Princess Consort, I would doubt he'd want to deny his own grandchildren the HRH title unless it's what the parents want.

Like I said, I'm fully expecting the Sussexes to follow the Wessexes' example, and ask that their children be addressed as children of Duke rather than have HRH titles because I think they both realize what a burden that title is when trying to lead life as a private citizen. However, I doubt Charles is going to shake it up on that front rather than follow his mother's example.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

One has no idea what Prince Andrew's delicate assignments are. Well ... Prince Henry can be busy with his causes and other things representing the Crown.

Like Youth Ambassador for the Commonwealth? Not one of his causes.


Like Continuing the Invictus Games? One of his causes.


Neither is something to sneer at or dismiss.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Camilla will be Queen when the time comes, I am sure of it.

Any other title when Charles ascends the throne would seem awkward and unsuitable.

 

[Rudolph]

But what I’m saying is, as much of a traditionalist Charles seems to be, he’s also very pragmatic. IMO if thought it would viewed favourably by the public, he’d limited royal styles in the blink of an eye.

George V was partially responding to public opinion with the LP of 1917.

 

[jacqui24]

Camilla will be Queen when the time comes, I am sure of it.

Any other title when Charles ascends the throne would seem awkward and unsuitable.

The problem with that is they've explicitly stated she'll be Princess Consort when the time comes back when they got married. And I am supportive of Camilla being Queen Consort, but just pointing out that they've kind of backed themselves into a corner here.

 

[Rudolph]

Like Youth Ambassador for the Commonwealth? Not one of his causes.


Like Continuing the Invictus Games? One of his causes.


Neither is something to sneer at or dismiss.

Commonwealth youth ambassador is just invented thing though. Harry’s going into his mid30s and Meghan will be 37 in August. How long they’ll be able to represent the ‘youth’ is debatable.

According to the Royal Foundation website the IG have become independent. Harry is Patron of the IG foundation but that’s different from the actual games.

 

[jacqui24]

But what I’m saying is, as much of a traditionalist Charles seems to be, he’s also very pragmatic. IMO if thought it would viewed favourably by the public, he’d limited royal styles in the blink of an eye.

George V was partially responding to public opinion with the LP of 1917.

But how would that even come about in Charles' reign? I highly expect that Harry will ask his children to forego HRH status. Given that the children are likely to be born in the next few years while QEII is still around, there is little need to issue an LP. LP of 1917 was necessary as there were different families producing children still. As it stands, the only additional potential HRHs in the next two decades are Harry's children.

 

[jacqui24]

Commonwealth youth ambassador is just invented thing though. Harry’s going into his mid30s and Meghan will be 37 in August. How long they’ll be able to represent the ‘youth’ is debatable.

According to the Royal Foundation website the IG have become independent. Harry is Patron of the IG foundation but that’s different from the actual games.

Well, they are about as youthful as this royal family will get for the next two decades. However, is the role representing youth or working with youth and inspiring youth? There is definitely more time for that. Hate to get into politics, but during the 2016 election, Bernie Sanders was a huge inspiration to the youth of the country, and he was nearing his 70s.

And IG Foundation is what funds IG. Harry continuously to be a very visible promoter of the games as needed. And as long as there is still a need for the game, I imagine Harry will be involved and attend each year. However, I'm sure the personnel that's been hired to run the day to day is very capable. Eventually, it'll turn out to be like Sentebale where it'll have the ability to run itself with support from Harry when necessary. That's how all sustainable charity should be. That doesn't take away from what Harry has done for it and how capable he's proven himself to be in terms of creating something from just an idea. It'll be useful for other causes that he usually wants to take on as well.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Commonwealth youth ambassador is just invented thing though. Harry’s going into his mid30s and Meghan will be 37 in August. How long they’ll be able to represent the ‘youth’ is debatable.

According to the Royal Foundation website the IG have become independent. Harry is Patron of the IG foundation but that’s different from the actual games.

So you agree with Al_bina's assessment?