The Future of the British Monarchy 3: Sep 2025 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I don't really care what these silly polls say, and yet I still feel a bit sad about Camilla getting a net negative rating. What on earth does she need to do? It's been 34 years since Charles and Diana separated. A lot of the people polled wouldn't even have been born then.
 
Alison H said:
I don't really care what these silly polls say, and yet I still feel a bit sad about Camilla getting a net negative rating. What on earth does she need to do? It's been 34 years since Charles and Diana separated. A lot of the people polled wouldn't even have been born then.
Click to expand...
Which is why they only see the "saint" Diana as the media portray her while Camilla is the evil homewrecker. Ironically, from what I can observe in social media, those same demography is also fan of Anny Boleyn while mostly has no positive opinion about Catherine of Aragon.
 
An Ipsos poll has come out, taken this month, though before Prince Andrew’s arrest, on the popularity of the British Monarchy and its members. Although certainly not disastrous, approval is down, as one might expect after the very recent Andrew/Epstein revelations.

This trend is much more noticeable among young Britons, Gen Ys, Gen Zs, though approval has also lessened overall among older cohorts.


 
Last edited:
I find some people's views rather illogical. Why would Princess Anne be to blame for what Andrew's done or not done? And what do the people who feel that he King hasn't done enough think that he *should* have done? Thrown Andrew in the Tower of London? The King doesn't have the power to arrest people: that is the job of the police.

I could swing for Andrew. I don't suppose he gives two hoots about the damage he's doing to the rest of the Royal Family.
 
Alison H said:
I find some people's views rather illogical. Why would Princess Anne be to blame for what Andrew's done or not done? And what do the people who feel that he King hasn't done enough think that he *should* have done? Thrown Andrew in the Tower of London? The King doesn't have the power to arrest people: that is the job of the police.

I could swing for Andrew. I don't suppose he gives two hoots about the damage he's doing to the rest of the Royal Family.
Click to expand...
I know isn't hindsight a wonderful perception !
The untold damage Andrew has inflicted on the RF has yet to be seen and I agree he probably doesn't care too.
 
Bubbly said:
If they continue with their duty, as the King communicated yesterday, I think the monarchy will be okay.
Click to expand...
Anti Monarchist and Anarchists will jump on the Andrew-Epstein band wagon , its what they have been waiting for.
Make no mistake that despite being stripped of his titles and style AMW has damaged the Monarchy.
 
An Ard Ri said:
I know isn't hindsight a wonderful perception !
The untold damage Andrew has inflicted on the RF has yet to be seen and I agree he probably doesn't care too.
Click to expand...
He seems to care about those closest to him, so I am not sure that he doesn’t care about the damage to the monarchy (although my guess would be that it comes second to feeling sorry for himself). I am afraid he was so thick that he had no clue what damage he did to the monarchy at the time and he was given a free pass, so unfortunately never corrected his way.
 
An Ard Ri said:
Anti Monarchist and Anarchists will jump on the Andrew-Epstein band wagon , its what they have been waiting for.
Make no mistake that despite being stripped of his titles and style AMW has damaged the Monarchy.
Click to expand...
If the numbers get worse, they could get better again at some point IMO, depending on their behaviour and if the people will approve, how the King handled this matter. I still don't think the monarchy will be abolished just yet. The problem with that would be to come up with an alternative, but they have the perspective of (so far) unproblematic William as their future head of state, and I think that's important for the next decades.
 
Bubbly said:
If the numbers get worse, they could get better again at some point IMO, depending on their behaviour. I still don't think the monarchy will be abolished just yet. The problem with that would be to come up with an alternative, but they have the perspective of (so far) unproblematic William as their future head of state, and I think that's important.
Click to expand...
The Windsor's have weathered many storms over the years but this one is on a different scale , I have an uneasy feeling about it all.
 
Bubbly said:
If the numbers get worse, they could get better again at some point IMO, depending on their behaviour and if the people will approve, how the King handled this matter. I still don't think the monarchy will be abolished just yet. The problem with that would be to come up with an alternative, but they have the perspective of (so far) unproblematic William as their future head of state, and I think that's important for the next decades.
Click to expand...
I think the Monarchy is fine and will be fine. One the media-generated drama and histrionics die down, as they would. It would be clearer to all and sundry that this is good for the Monarchy. They've demonstrated that they hold their own to account in a way that republics don't and politicians don't. Everyone is seeing a consititutional monarchy demonstrating that no one is above the law quicker than the republic where the majority of this specific crime was committed and majority of the deviants reside. It is always useful to compare favourability of the monarchy with that of the politicians that are the viable alternatives to gain perspective on media histrionics.

Exorcising Andrew and allowing him to face justice will strengthen the institution in the long term. Charles and William now have greater justification for streamlining the way the firm operates so republicans will have less to attack the firm with. The public know the decisions around Andrew and the leeway he was given were under the late Queen's reign. They already accept that William will bring about change that will kickstart a new era for the firm. No one has that level of anticipation for UK political parties or countries that are republics, particularly as other Epstein clients avoid justice and scandals continue with this UK government. There is no sense, as with the British monarchy, that the law is followed, steps are being taken to prevent a similar occurence and a leader untainted by Epstein or scandals will be in charge in the near future.

The British Monarchy is fine. Their life and work is a marathon not a sprint. They are smartly getting about their service to the nation, responding appropriately when there is a genuine need for a statement, otherwise ignoring the short-term histrionics. My personal preference is for them to focus on making more substantive reforms within the firm that ensure more streamlining and robust accountability so no royal is ever again given the free rein or unaccountable privileges Andrew and his ex-wife had.
 
yukari said:
Which is why they only see the "saint" Diana as the media portray her while Camilla is the evil homewrecker. Ironically, from what I can observe in social media, those same demography is also fan of Anny Boleyn while mostly has no positive opinion about Catherine of Aragon.
Click to expand...

Sounds like clear ageism: The younger wife is always the superior one, even when the situations are reversed.
 
Real, I think your reading of the situation is a very astute one. Of course, there may be other revelations that could potentially cause further issues for the monarchy but otherwise I think the way they are dealing with the situation is the best, and perhaps only, course which they can take.
 
Until now what will we remember of Charles III Reign.?
He has an unknown cancer and battle against it. He managed to attend the most important Events.
Does he has close contacts with his Prime Ministers ?
Prnce Harry , his Son did a big mistake by writing his book the Spare , this should have remain private, but each time Prince Harry is in the UK , he is not available to see him.
For Andrew , the Royal family knew his Epsten Affaire since years and closed their eyes. And when it was made public , He disgraced him completely and yesterday when Andrew was arrested for a day , he published a statement.?
 
He has constantly worked hard to bring different communities together, at a time when events abroad and the actions of certain groups at home are driving people apart.

He made a point of involving different faith groups at his Coronation.

He has been very supportive of the Jewish and Islamic communities at what is a difficult time for both.

He has shown support to Ukraine.

He has received overseas leaders and made visits abroad, despite his health problems.


He is not responsible for the actions of his 66-year-old brother and 41-year-old son.
 
Alison H said:
He has constantly worked hard to bring different communities together, at a time when events abroad and the actions of certain groups at home are driving people apart.

He made a point of involving different faith groups at his Coronation.

He has been very supportive of the Jewish and Islamic communities at what is a difficult time for both.

He has shown support to Ukraine.

He has received overseas leaders and made visits abroad, despite his health problems.


He is not responsible for the actions of his 66-year-old brother and 41-year-old son.
Click to expand...
So true.
OR..... QEll's coddling of Andrew for a decade even after The Epstein Revelations in 2011. It wasn't until the fallout from that trainwreck Interview with Emily Maitlis ACTUALLY sealed Andrew's fate.
Which begs the question.... Where would the *State of Affairs* be had Andrew NEVER done The Interview ?
But I'm afraid Charles will take the hit in his reputation for the Andrew *situations* out of his control. I guess we shall see.....
Don't forget, Charles was reportedly never in favor of Andrew being rewarded by being given the Job as Trade Ambassador - Envoy in 2001. How right he was there.
 
Bubbly said:
If they continue with their duty, as the King communicated yesterday, I think the monarchy will be okay.
Click to expand...
Agree. King Charles - and William - has acted quickly and decisively. In fact I think te overall BRF rating will go up, because they acted and because Andrew was in fact arrested. Which I do not believe would have happened, had King Charles been against it. - In fact I can't help wondering whether King Charles (and William?) were - shall we say - not too adverse to Andrew actually being arrested.

I suspect King Charles and William are pretty incandescent with rage over Andrew.
 
As ever (to coin a phrase!) polls conflate "the royals" with the instution of the monarchy.

Republicans won't win by being critical or abusive, they need to persuade the British people that they'd be better off with a president.

I think that's a hard sell, even with gen xyz or whatever they're called now.
 
And the royal family has always known how to resolve all the problems and crises it has faced. Even more delicate matters like Andrew's.
Especially in recent decades, perhaps since the abdication of King Edward VIII.
The truth is that the British monarchy has always known how to reinvent itself and adapt to all times. And it is also an example for other European monarchies in this regard.
 
For all the talk of the worst British royal scandal in centuries, there were rumors (and not baseless ones) of the Duke of Cumberland (a future king of Hannover) murdering one of his valets in 1810 and the Duke of Clarence (expected to be a future king of Britain) visiting a brothel that employed underage boys in 1889.


It is not that British royals have never been accused of serious crimes, it is only that previous accusations were suppressed rather than amplified. (The attached article on the 1889 scandal explains that the Duke of Clarence's alleged involvement was never mentioned in the British press, even though American and French newspapers discussed it openly.)
 


Hannah Furness, a royal reporter for the Telegraph, interviewed multiple anonymous sources, "all of whom have direct knowledge of the palace and its inhabitants".

While reluctant to directly criticize the late Elizabeth II, these "critical friends" shared suggestions for how the royal family can learn from "mistakes of the past".

"They point to specific challenges: a financial structure which supports the heir but not the spares; a household of staff set up to make their bosses’ lives easier rather than challenge their behaviour; and a “never complain, never explain” instinct which no longer holds up.

[…] “He [Prince Andrew] was bullying to staff and threatened to report them to the Queen constantly,” said one source. “He’d say, ‘if you’re not careful, the Queen will find out’.” […] [It] was not a secret [...] and staff [...] were expected to absorb it.

The result, multiple sources said, is an air of keeping members of the Royal family happy rather than accountable. [...]

When Sir Christopher Geidt, the late Queen’s private secretary, described as “one of the few people willing to say boo to a goose”, tried to pull the household in line in 2017, “he got whacked for his efforts”.

[…]

When it came to the former Duke of York […] “It’s been death by 1,000 cuts because nobody will take a bold or firm decision,” said one source familiar with negotiations over his role in recent years.

[…]

While the Duchy of Cornwall funds the heir apparent [...] “children two, three and four” are left to figure out their own way with “pocket money”.

The result, one observer said, was to leave members of the Royal family in jobs such as trade envoys in the case of Andrew – indulged in trying their hand without any real qualification.

[…]

“The structure of Buckingham Palace is the same as it was in Queen Victoria’s reign,” one source said carefully, suggesting it is on the list for change (another describes it as “castles full of staff doing f--k all”)."​
 
An interesting read, thank you.

Both Ann & Edward (him admittedly after a rocky start) have made a good go of the "duty & service" part of royal life. So is this less about systems & structures & more about character?

My take is that it's probably both. Even in a different, more modern, more accountable royal household AMW would still have disgraced himself.

It is ecouraging that the future king is "intolerant of rudeness to staff" but at the same time it is the least anyone should expect in any organisation.
 
Blog Real said:
And the royal family has always known how to resolve all the problems and crises it has faced. Even more delicate matters like Andrew's.
Especially in recent decades, perhaps since the abdication of King Edward VIII.
The truth is that the British monarchy has always known how to reinvent itself and adapt to all times. And it is also an example for other European monarchies in this regard.
Click to expand...
I believe and hope they're going to resurface from this scandal. I honestly think dissolving the monarchy is going to be a bad thing in the long run. The British monarchy, IMO, is in a rather unique position compared to most of the other European monarchies now. Without the monarchy, is there going to be even a Commonwealth for long?
 
tommy100 said:
I actually think William should create a "Royal House" like in the Netherlands to stop this "working royals" notion - members of the Royal House are all HRHs, all working to represent the crown and are the only ones who have their work funded, have access to Royal Household staff etc. Other members of the family don't have HRH and don't do public duties, bar perhaps being called in for garden parties, state banquets and supporting their own causes (as Beatrice, Eugenie and Zara all do now anyway). Then in a situation where somebody wants to walk away they "resign" from being a member of the Royal House, they loose their HRH and stop being funded.
Click to expand...

In the Netherlands, another difference between Royal House members and non-members is ministerial responsibility: The Government is officially responsible for the actions of members of the Royal House.

This provides an incentive for the Government to monitor and regulate the activities and statements of members of the Royal House: Members of Parliament can and will hold the Government responsible if members of the Royal House step out of line. (Perhaps the Dutch royal experts here can explain in more detail how it works?)

Would that also be a good system for the UK to adopt?
 
Not an expert perse, but that is indeed more or less how it works since 1848 in the Netherlands. In Belgium it exists since 1831 though Belgian members-of-parlament already tried to pass it in 1815, still with the house of Orange. It supposedly is based on the works of Benjamin Constant.

The Prime Minister is responsible for wat the King does and needs to explain this in parlament, thus also curtailing the power of the King. The idea was at the time that it would work as a sword and a shield. A sword in the sense that parlament can democratically check the King. And a shield in the sense that the PM will protect the King. It works the same way for the civil service at the ministeries and the responsible ministers.

Whenever there is something with a royal the PM needs to come to parlament to explain. In the 2000s we had among others the COVID trip of the King to Greece, The King and hunting, Laurentien and her foundation, role of Prince Constantijn in Techlab, sale of art work by Juliana's daughters, Bernhard and his SS membership, Bernhard and his use of the secret services, Bernhard and an alleged attept at a coup d'etat in Indonesia, many financial incidents (Beatrix' sail boat, income Amalia, salary increase, restoration palaces, letter box firms for Irene, Margriet and Christina and families etc) the house in Mozambique, the house in Greece as well as more seriously Mabelgate, father Zorreguieta and Margaritagate -the later was an absolute cricus.

I am always amazed how other monarchies seem a-political to a large extend and function in a vaccuum. A scandal like Andrew, Mette-Marit, Martha-Louise or even the Sussexes and their accusations would all have been fodder for parlament here. Both Andrew and MM with the potential of a real political crisis. The only other monarchy where I see a PM regularly answering questions about the monarchy in parlament is Belgium.

It has positives and negatives. The positives are that it gives the government, parlament and thus the people a say in how the head of state functions. It protects the King [all he does is the responsibility of the PM]. On the minus side it that things get politisized quickly, sometimes for political gain, more to hurt the PM than out of concern of the issue itself.

-
As for the distinction of the royal house and the royal family. The law limiting the royal house dates from 2002. The reason was that the family was expanding and it was impossible for the PM to be responsible for a dozen or more people. Many of whom wanted to pursue their own lives and carreers. Informally it was said that the Windsor soap operas of the 90-ties made Queen Beatrix realise that a clear distinction needed to be made. It was clear to her that the supporting cast could damage the institution while little they did would significantly improve the image of the monarchy. To underline the distinction she gave her own grandchildren from her younger sons different, lower titles too.
 
Last edited:
Tatiana Maria said:
In the Netherlands, another difference between Royal House members and non-members is ministerial responsibility: The Government is officially responsible for the actions of members of the Royal House.

This provides an incentive for the Government to monitor and regulate the activities and statements of members of the Royal House: Members of Parliament can and will hold the Government responsible if members of the Royal House step out of line. (Perhaps the Dutch royal experts here can explain in more detail how it works?)

Would that also be a good system for the UK to adopt?
Click to expand...
IMO this is the model that most European constitutional monarchies should adopt.
The Royal House is distinctively separate from the Royal Family.
 
The only active members of the royal family should be the King and Queen, the Prince and Princess of Wales, and their children. The monarch's siblings as well. The children of the monarch's siblings would not have the title of Prince or Princess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Locked
The Future of the British Monarchy 2: Sep 2022 -Aug 2025
12 13 14
Replies
411
Views
26K
Marengo
Marengo
Jacknch
  • Locked
The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022
65 66 67
Replies
2K
Views
265K
Marengo
Marengo
B
  • Locked
Restoration of the Monarchy in Romania
41 42 43
Replies
1K
Views
183K
Marengo
Marengo

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom