The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Denville]

Please do not give Nicola any ideas....

Never heard of it.

 

[Curryong]

But ‘a lot of Scots’ do want independence from England.

The referendum question was, "Should Scotland be an independent country?", which voters answered with "Yes" or "No". The "No" side won with 2,001,926 (55.3%) voting against independence and 1,617,989 (44.7%) voting in favour. ... The independence proposal required a simple majority to pass.


Precisely 1,617,989 in fact did want independence and voted for it. That vote was lost by a pretty slim majority. However, in the wake of Brexit and continuing resentments in Scotland, there’s no guarantee that the No vote will prevail the next time.

 

[Eskimo]

If Republic thinks having Prince Harry who (according to latest YouGov poll on 22nd April) has a -7 favourability rating amongst the British public, as the influencer to end the monarchy, then they are either having a laugh or just deluded. Judging by the poll and current situation, I don't think the UK government under the Conservatives would even consider a referendum, let alone the republic option would win

I personally think Graham Smith is completely bitter and frustrated that the Oprah interview did not cause the general British public to "cancel" the royal family.

Going back to Camilla Tominey's tweet, Robert Jobson actually replied with disappointment that Graham Smith decided to capitalise Prince Harry's mental health.

Robert Jobson @theroyaleditor
Replying to @CamillaTominey and @GrahamSmith_
That’s unlike @GrahamSmith_ to capitalise on somebody’s mental health issues. Prince Harry has said he has struggled with mental health issues for years. I thought Graham was a more sensitive soul. A tad cheap Graham, I’d expect more from an intelligent chap like you.
5:16 AM · May 14, 2021·Twitter for iPhone​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1392921683275751439

This is why I think that Twitterverse is going to drastically reduce their attention to people who has an ax to grind against the BRF. I remember reading twitterverse’s unfathomable shock when they realized that their outrage after the Oprah interview would not going to “cancel” the BRF. People were genuinely surprised to realize that they can’t cancel everything they don’t personally like, leading them to move onto other “outrages” where they can make the impact they desire.

 

[Eskimo]

But ‘a lot of Scots’ do want independence from England.

The referendum question was, "Should Scotland be an independent country?", which voters answered with "Yes" or "No". The "No" side won with 2,001,926 (55.3%) voting against independence and 1,617,989 (44.7%) voting in favour. ... The independence proposal required a simple majority to pass.


Precisely 1,617,989 in fact did want independence and voted for it. That vote was lost by a pretty slim majority. However, in the wake of Brexit and continuing resentments in Scotland, there’s no guarantee that the No vote will prevail the next time.

A referendum can only take place if the central government in Westminster agrees to one and I do not see Boris Johnson’s government every agreeing to one

 

[Blog Real]

But ‘a lot of Scots’ do want independence from England.

The referendum question was, "Should Scotland be an independent country?", which voters answered with "Yes" or "No". The "No" side won with 2,001,926 (55.3%) voting against independence and 1,617,989 (44.7%) voting in favour. ... The independence proposal required a simple majority to pass.


Precisely 1,617,989 in fact did want independence and voted for it. That vote was lost by a pretty slim majority. However, in the wake of Brexit and continuing resentments in Scotland, there’s no guarantee that the No vote will prevail the next time.

Truth. But I think that the situation in Catalonia in Spain is much more serious than the situation in Scotland in the United Kingdom. We have not seen demonstrations in Scotland, like the ones we saw in Catalonia. And the situation in Catalonia is more complicated.
But I also don’t know what benefits Catalonia and Scotland would gain from becoming independent.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Truth. But I think that the situation in Catalonia in Spain is much more serious than the situation in Scotland in the United Kingdom. We have not seen demonstrations in Scotland, like the ones we saw in Catalonia. And the situation in Catalonia is more complicated.
But I also don’t know what benefits Catalonia and Scotland would gain from becoming independent.

The difference is that Scotland has always been an own entity, with own laws, own justice system, own Pound, own education system, a deep identity and -since the devolution- a strong and self-conscious political demos. Their by far biggest party, victorious in election after election, is not Labour, are not the Tories, are not the Liberal Democrats. With also a completely different mindset regarding Europe, where the Scots voted almost 2/3 rd to remain in the EU (but were nevertheless forced to leave the EU), today feeling all consequences they never voted for.

For centuries Catalonia has been ruled (or dictated) by a centralistic State. It was not a union of two kingdoms but more a vassal region to Madrid. With a strong oppression under the long Franco dictatorship.

The main difference however is that Scotland will remain for the Crown. Elizabeth II will become Queen of Scots. The SNP has no plan to establish a republic. In Spain a sedition of Catalonia will for sure mean the economically strongest region to leave Spain, to establish a republic in Catalonia and will put an enormous pressure on the remnant of Spain, with more regions more and more eating away the central Government.

It seems more "easy" to restore the Kingdom of Scotland, to end Westminster rule, and move on forwards than to break away from centralistic Spain. But again, on this Royal Forum: no throne will be lost, a throne will be gained for Elizabeth II or Charles.

Instead of a United Kingdom it will become a personal union with the same monarch. Like the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Like Sweden and Norway. Like Great-Britain and Hannover.

 

[Curryong]

Not according to this latest survey. Scots are divided on the issue of monarchy if Scotland gained Independence.

And I remember reading several articles around the time of the referendum in which the journalists (often Scots) believed that once Scotland was independent another referenda held later would establish a republic.

Most all-Britain surveys published in the past decade have shown Scots to be less enthusiastic about the monarchy than the English.



https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scots-split-whether-monarchy-should-23752436

 

[Alison H]

But ‘a lot of Scots’ do want independence from England.

A lot of people would like the weather to brighten up. A lot of people would like there to be fewer traffic jams on the motorways. A lot of people would like there to be fewer repeats on TV. But that hasn't got anything to do with the future of the British monarchy either. This conversation just seems to be getting way off track!


And Scotland does not want independence from England. Scotland is not part of England, therefore Scotland cannot want independence from England. Some Scots may want independence from the United Kingdom.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Not according to this latest survey. Scots are divided on the issue of monarchy if Scotland gained Independence.

And I remember reading several articles around the time of the referendum in which the journalists (often Scots) believed that once Scotland was independent another referenda held later would establish a republic.

Most all-Britain surveys published in the past decade have shown Scots to be less enthusiastic about the monarchy than the English.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scots-split-whether-monarchy-should-23752436

I wonder whether the numbers would differ if a uniquely Scottish monarchy were an option, rather than one shared with England.

A lot of people would like the weather to brighten up. A lot of people would like there to be fewer traffic jams on the motorways. A lot of people would like there to be fewer repeats on TV. But that hasn't got anything to do with the future of the British monarchy either. This conversation just seems to be getting way off track!

I think Scottish independence would be certain to have a substantial impact on the future of the British monarchy, whether or not independent Scotland opts to retain the British monarch.

 

[Alison H]

I wonder whether the numbers would differ if a uniquely Scottish monarchy were an option, rather than one shared with England.

A few years ago, one of the newspapers reported that the Duke of Bavaria, as the leading Jacobite claimant, was set to become King of Scotland if Scotland voted for independence from the UK.

But this was on April 1st!

 

[muriel]

That is not how it works. Imagine all Spaniards have to say if Catalonia indeed may leave the kingdom or not, after a victory for the independents in an official and recognized referendum.

It would mean that Galica, Castille, Andalucia, the Baleares, etc. denying what the Catalonians themselves want.

Imagine that a majority of the Scots wants to leave the Union. Then people in Cornwall, Kent or Wales say: "No way!". That is not how it works.

That is not the point I am making. Whilst I am not suggesting that the Scots do not have the right of self determination, so do the rest of the citizens of the UK. Surely if the rest of the citizens of the UK choose they no longer want to have Scotland as part of the UK, they should have the right to implement it. Scrap the Barnett formula, and keep more of the funding for the rest of the UK is the argument that is starting to take shape.

 

[muriel]

But isn't it so that Scotland have some assets they have to share with the rest of the Uk by now (like the North Sea oil) and that a lot of companies which are Scottish have their seats in London and this is where they pay their taxes?

There isn't much North Sea oil left, and what is left is not particularly economic to get. As regards Scottish companies, many, including RBS and Standard Lfe Aberdeen have made clear that they would redomicile in the UK if Scotland were to become independent.

 

[Claire]

King Charles to open palaces for the people -
Heir consults family over greater public access

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/king-charles-to-open-palaces-for-the-people-2gqdmc9xj

 

[Claire]

Interesting question for everyone on the forum.

Currently the court circular reports the engagement of the royal family as it has been doing for years. You and I know that this represents only the public and media facing image of the royals and it is obvious that royals do not only work the hours of their engagement and then lie at the pool.
How best would you go about it - to better quantify a royal working day? Which having to go to the extremes of publishing the entire diary of the royal.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The CC has been changing over the years.

As I have said elsewhere I am doing an analysis of the CC from hopefully 1788 onwards but I have started in 1952 but one thing that has already struck me is recording overseas engagements ... somewhere between 1985 and 1996 they started to record them in the CC. That means, for instance, that the Queen's great tour in 1953-54 has a record of when she left the UK and when she returned but nothing about what she did ...

Another thing I have noticed is that since 2002, and the death of The Queen Mum, when the lady in waiting changes that is no longer being recorded. While the Queen Mum was alive that was recorded for both the Queen Mum and The Queen every two weeks but now it isn't recorded at all.

Another thing that has changed is that now it is only the royals that are recorded and not the comings and goings, births, deaths and other events of the aristocracy as well e.g. in the 60s the CC would record when an aristocrat went overseas and changes of postal arrangements.

I am sure it will continue to evolve but the publishing of the working royals diaries on a daily basis - to account for their hours would be interesting and may easily show how much work they really do so something like this:

9.00 a.m. Read correspondence from people - 130 letters
10.30 a.m. Read through speeches for this afternoon and edited same
11.00 a.m. Dressed for afternoon engagements
11.30 a.m. Left home to drive to first engagement.
12.00 noon Arrived at reception for xxxx and gave first speech thanking people for work on yyyy
1.30 p.m. Left reception and drove to reception for aaaa and gave second speech congratulating bbbb on achievements.
3.30 p.m. Left reception and returned home
4.00 p.m. Received ccccc and had talks on issues of relevance
4.30 p.m. Received dddd and had talks on issues of relevance
5.00 p.m. Received eeee and had talks on issues of relevance
5.30 p.m. Dressed for dinner
6.30 p.m. Dinner - private
8.00 p.m. Returned to office to finish reading correspondence and read replies from the morning's correspondence
12.00 midnight - bed

 

[Eskimo]

The CC has been changing over the years.

As I have said elsewhere I am doing an analysis of the CC from hopefully 1788 onwards but I have started in 1952 but one thing that has already struck me is recording overseas engagements ... somewhere between 1985 and 1996 they started to record them in the CC. That means, for instance, that the Queen's great tour in 1953-54 has a record of when she left the UK and when she returned but nothing about what she did ...

Another thing I have noticed is that since 2002, and the death of The Queen Mum, when the lady in waiting changes that is no longer being recorded. While the Queen Mum was alive that was recorded for both the Queen Mum and The Queen every two weeks but now it isn't recorded at all.

Another thing that has changed is that now it is only the royals that are recorded and not the comings and goings, births, deaths and other events of the aristocracy as well e.g. in the 60s the CC would record when an aristocrat went overseas and changes of postal arrangements.

I am sure it will continue to evolve but the publishing of the working royals diaries on a daily basis - to account for their hours would be interesting and may easily show how much work they really do so something like this:

9.00 a.m. Read correspondence from people - 130 letters
10.30 a.m. Read through speeches for this afternoon and edited same
11.00 a.m. Dressed for afternoon engagements
11.30 a.m. Left home to drive to first engagement.
12.00 noon Arrived at reception for xxxx and gave first speech thanking people for work on yyyy
1.30 p.m. Left reception and drove to reception for aaaa and gave second speech congratulating bbbb on achievements.
3.30 p.m. Left reception and returned home
4.00 p.m. Received ccccc and had talks on issues of relevance
4.30 p.m. Received dddd and had talks on issues of relevance
5.00 p.m. Received eeee and had talks on issues of relevance
5.30 p.m. Dressed for dinner
6.30 p.m. Dinner - private
8.00 p.m. Returned to office to finish reading correspondence and read replies from the morning's correspondence
12.00 midnight - bed

I seriously doubt that any royal, even the Queen, has had to put in more than eight hours a day except on extremely rare occasions. It rare for them to have more than two engagements a day.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It is actually quite common for them to do more than two engagements a day.

I have only given 5 engagements - quite common for Charles for instance to have something like this - two receptions and 3 'receiveds'.

I have most of the day dealing with the sort of stuff that doesn't make it into the CC - dealing with correspondence and working on their speeches. I haven't included any 'briefing' on an upcoming engagement, which again takes time and for the ladies getting fitted for their outfits for the engagements.

 

[Claire]

Unsure how they are going to do it - but it is on the cards Charles wants it very clear that there must be complete visibility that the royals work full hours. To be honest I expect that he might bring in specific holiday times for them as well - maybe even work contracts.

 

[AC21091968]

The CC has been changing over the years.

As I have said elsewhere I am doing an analysis of the CC from hopefully 1788 onwards but I have started in 1952 but one thing that has already struck me is recording overseas engagements ... somewhere between 1985 and 1996 they started to record them in the CC. That means, for instance, that the Queen's great tour in 1953-54 has a record of when she left the UK and when she returned but nothing about what she did ...

Another thing I have noticed is that since 2002, and the death of The Queen Mum, when the lady in waiting changes that is no longer being recorded. While the Queen Mum was alive that was recorded for both the Queen Mum and The Queen every two weeks but now it isn't recorded at all.

Another thing that has changed is that now it is only the royals that are recorded and not the comings and goings, births, deaths and other events of the aristocracy as well e.g. in the 60s the CC would record when an aristocrat went overseas and changes of postal arrangements.

I am sure it will continue to evolve but the publishing of the working royals diaries on a daily basis - to account for their hours would be interesting and may easily show how much work they really do so something like this:

9.00 a.m. Read correspondence from people - 130 letters
10.30 a.m. Read through speeches for this afternoon and edited same
11.00 a.m. Dressed for afternoon engagements
11.30 a.m. Left home to drive to first engagement.
12.00 noon Arrived at reception for xxxx and gave first speech thanking people for work on yyyy
1.30 p.m. Left reception and drove to reception for aaaa and gave second speech congratulating bbbb on achievements.
3.30 p.m. Left reception and returned home
4.00 p.m. Received ccccc and had talks on issues of relevance
4.30 p.m. Received dddd and had talks on issues of relevance
5.00 p.m. Received eeee and had talks on issues of relevance
5.30 p.m. Dressed for dinner
6.30 p.m. Dinner - private
8.00 p.m. Returned to office to finish reading correspondence and read replies from the morning's correspondence
12.00 midnight - bed

Thank you Iluvbertie for your detailed and interesting post on the Court Circular (CC). I also wonder if the future CC would be more detailed almost like a timetable. This includes internal correspondent between palace staff, but then it would probably be intruding confidential/secret information.

Good luck with your analysis of CC, which would be very enticing!

King Charles to open palaces for the people -
Heir consults family over greater public access

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/king-charles-to-open-palaces-for-the-people-2gqdmc9xj

Thank you Claire for sharing the link. On a side note, I actually briefly saw the news about Charles opening up Palaces for greater public access on Nine News Australia this morning.

 

[valeas]

I hope this is the correct thread for my question.
Is it given Harry will be chosen Counsellor of State when Charles becomes King?
Makes no sense after Harry's left and his behaviour towards the crown.
Does it need an act from parliament to exclude him or how does this work?
Txs if some british likes to explain.

 

[Somebody]

I hope this is the correct thread for my question.
Is it given Harry will be chosen Counsellor of State when Charles becomes King?
Makes no sense after Harry's left and his behaviour towards the crown.
Does it need an act from parliament to exclude him or how does this work?
Txs if some british likes to explain.

He already is one of the Counsellors of State. He became one when he turned 21.

One of the requirements is that he needs to be domiciled in the UK. It could be questioned whether he is still domiciled in the UK or changed it to the USA. If they would want him to no longer be one of the CoS's, that would be the easiest way to go about it imho.

N.B. Did you read this entry on 'Counsellor of State' on wikipedia? Seems like a good start to get a better understanding on the topic at hand.

Edit: you might like this more lengthy discussion on the 'issue' with the Counsellors of State.

 

[Mbruno]

Thank you Iluvbertie for your detailed and interesting post on the Court Circular (CC). I also wonder if the future CC would be more detailed almost like a timetable. This includes internal correspondent between palace staff, but then it would probably be intruding confidential/secret information.

Good luck with your analysis of CC, which would be very enticing!



Thank you Claire for sharing the link. On a side note, I actually briefly saw the news about Charles opening up Palaces for greater public access on Nine News Australia this morning.

I am surprised he is also planning to open private residences like Balmoral and Sandrigham to the public.

 

[Osipi]

I am surprised he is also planning to open private residences like Balmoral and Sandrigham to the public.

Actually, I'm not surprised at all he's considering doing this. Charles, in all his years as The Prince of Wales, has made the people and their needs his priority in just about everything he does. He's worked tirelessly over the years to turn Highgrove into something sustainable that will last for generations for the Duchy of Cornwall and it's people. I imagine (and this is just my thought) that Charles probably feels that all the history, all the traditions and all the wonderful items and artworks and the architecture of the royal residences should be accessible to the people who are part and parcel of that history. To install a sense of pride in being able to be part of the continuity of what is the United Kingdom.

I think Charles more than lives up to his Prince of Wales motto "Ich Dien" which means "I Serve". Its the cornerstone of his character.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Sandringham is open to the public now - except for the two months when the Queen is in residence and the one weekend each year when Charles and Camilla are there.

If he is to open it for the remaining time I can only assume that he won't be staying there at all.

 

[Curryong]

What about Balmoral as well. Charles loves Birkhall and it is his comfortable home. Would he want to move to Balmoral ‘Castle’ in the new reign, and if he doesn’t who will occupy it in the summer? As for extra opening times for Balmoral and the surrounding estate I can’t see too many tourists lining up to go to chilly Deeside in the coldest months of winter.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I would imagine that William and Catherine would move into Balmoral while Charles stays at Birkhall. I can even see this becoming the 'norm' with each generation alternating which is the 'seat' of the monarch - just as I can see it happening at Sandringham although I am not convinced that Charles will use Sandringham as much as The Queen has. He usually leaves late on Christmas Day and prefers to spend New Year in Scotland.

 

[muriel]

I would imagine that William and Catherine would move into Balmoral while Charles stays at Birkhall. I can even see this becoming the 'norm' with each generation alternating which is the 'seat' of the monarch - just as I can see it happening at Sandringham although I am not convinced that Charles will use Sandringham as much as The Queen has. He usually leaves late on Christmas Day and prefers to spend New Year in Scotland.

I agree that it is entirely possible that, in the next reign, C&C to use Birkhall and W&C start using Balmoral.

As regards Sandringham, I can see Charles start to use it over Christmas and January, quite like the Queen. It is possible that he has not spent much time there in recent decades as he does not see it as his home and space, but very much his parents home. Birkhall is very much his retreat, and he goes up there whenever he can escape.

 

[Andy T]

All speculation of course, but perhaps future use of Sandringham and Balmoral depends on how long Her Majesty continues to reign. I would imagine that the Queen will wish to maintain family traditions and her family, partiuclarly C&C and W&C, will make an extra effort to gather around her at Sandringham and Balmoral during the festive season and the summer. If that situation continues for several years, there may be fewer dramatic changes at the start of the new reign, as C&C, and W&C will have already become used to being at Balmoral and Sandringham. If it doesn't, then it might be more natural for Charles to shift away.

 

[Somebody]

All speculation of course, but perhaps future use of Sandringham and Balmoral depends on how long Her Majesty continues to reign. I would imagine that the Queen will wish to maintain family traditions and her family, partiuclarly C&C and W&C, will make an extra effort to gather around her at Sandringham and Balmoral during the festive season and the summer. If that situation continues for several years, there may be fewer dramatic changes at the start of the new reign, as C&C, and W&C will have already become used to being at Balmoral and Sandringham. If it doesn't, then it might be more natural for Charles to shift away.

How do you think these additional years impact this principle as this has been the queen's practice for years; so Charles and Camilla as well as William and Catherine are already accustomed to this.

 

[duchessrachel]

I am not British but I greatly admire the British Royal Family. The popularity of the BRF and its future is not something that affects me personally, but I am concerned when I see articles like this:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...oung-britons-are-turning-their-backs-monarchy

Can someone comment on this? Is this a temporary thing in response to Harry and Meghan's whining or as the younger population ages, is there more of a chance of the Monarchy being abolished in the future?