The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[AC21091968]

The York princesses, especially Beatrice, were for years pilloried in the gutter press for "taking away jobs" from other, more "needy" or "deserving" people. Yet if they were not seen to work, they were "lazy" and living off the taxpayers. Eugenie has worked steadily since she graduated university, in the field she received her degree in no less, and still had the press focusing on her "holidays" many of which were actually business trips with the after work hours down-time being what hit the papers.

Sadly, this will be inevitable. There will be critics who tried to discredit their success, even when they (junior royal family members) earn through merit with little connections. I already saw some nasty comments on Lady Louise's carriage riding and horse riding: "She has the opportunity to do well, because she's from a wealthy family". I do think even non titled Royals can still face similar criticism (with maybe lesser extent), as critics continued to argue that Peter and Zara have "an easier ride to successful career", because their connections and who their grandparents are. It would not surprise me if these critics tries to discredit any future members of the Royal Family who got into Oxbridge (Oxford and Cambridge Universities) even after achieving high A-levels, that is adequate for their entry. These critics would argued that the main reason of academic success is purely due to their "private" education and tutors, not because they studied hard or academically gifted.

Speaking of Princess Eugenie, she has posted her artwork. The first picture is the photograph. The second one is her painting. She is definitely talented.

@princesseugenie Verified
It's World Art Day... I wanted to share something I did some years ago now. ⁣
Looking through my old art and crafts has been so fun today and I just hope this time can bring about more creativity from anyone who enjoys it. ⁣
⁣Happy #worldartday
25w​

https://www.instagram.com/p/B_A54FNF3uU/

 

[Denville]

Sadly, this will be inevitable. There will be critics who tried to discredit their success, even when they (junior royal family members) earn through merit with little connections. I already saw some nasty comments on Lady Louise's carriage riding and horse riding: "She has the opportunity to do well, because she's from a wealthy family". I do think even non titled Royals can still face similar criticism (with maybe lesser extent), as critics continued to argue that Peter and Zara have "an easier ride to successful career", because their connections and who their grandparents are. It would not surprise me if these critics tries to discredit any future members of the Royal Family who got into Oxbridge (Oxford and Cambridge Universities) even after achieving high A-levels, that is adequate for their entry. These critics would argued that the main reason of academic success is purely due to their "private" education and tutors, not because they studied hard or academically gifted.

S⁣
⁣Happy #worldartday
25w[/INDENT]
https://www.instagram.com/p/B_A54FNF3uU/

ALL royals get criticism. Why shouldn't they? They are rich privileged people who have wealth and status that isn't earned.. so of course they are going to be criticised. They are ordinary human beings, so they get things wrong, are very far from perfect and so of course, they are going to be noticed and criticised. Eugenie and Beatrice wernt much liked because they were seen as socialites dabbling in jobs, and also they are the daughters of a very unpopular couple.. over time they have slid into tolerated and ignored status by the press...but all royals are going to have times when the press and public are going to dislike them

 

[AC21091968]

ALL royals get criticism. Why shouldn't they? They are rich privileged people who have wealth and status that isn't earned.. so of course they are going to be criticised. They are ordinary human beings, so they get things wrong, are very far from perfect and so of course, they are going to be noticed and criticised. Eugenie and Beatrice wernt much liked because they were seen as socialites dabbling in jobs, and also they are the daughters of a very unpopular couple.. over time they have slid into tolerated and ignored status by the press...but all royals are going to have times when the press and public are going to dislike them

Of course, they will get criticism, it's part of freedom of press and freedom of speech. I'm not saying that they should be exempt from criticism. All I'm saying that they should be prepared for any lies, gossips, smears or accusation without being shut down by the Palace. They are probably advised not to read any social media comments, commentators or tabloids. I started to notice the reduced level of negative comments towards Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie from the Daily Mail readers after Meghan arrived at the scene. They seem to be shifting their vitriol at Meghan, as Beatrice and Eugenie are "the lesser of two evils". Yes, after the York Princesses' wedding, people started to know more about them and perhaps less cynical, when they found out about their charity works (which are very close to Beatrice and Eugenie).

 

[Claire]

yes - very true.
Unfortunately the criticism is seen as the sentiment of the majority of the people, just because it is online and liked. And then the sentiment of the online community is pulled through to the general opinion. I am always concerned when people, especially young people match their opinion to what they are told to think about that they see online.
The criticism of all royals see increasingly as the media, not only the tabloid press are coming to regard social media as sources of news. And rather as correct barometers of attitude. It is unfair - terribly for all concerned. Not a single royal are treated like people, but I think that says a lot of society, not about the royals.
I think that one royal is currently doing work under a pseudonym - I wonder if that will come out one day - not that I actually want it to. I doubt it will even acknowledged either way . But how are critics going to say that the success was due to him been in the royal family, when it is done anonymously.

 

[Denville]

OI started to notice the reduced level of negative comments towards Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie from the Daily Mail readers after Meghan arrived at the scene. They seem to be shifting their vitriol at Meghan, as Beatrice and Eugenie are "the lesser of two evils". Yes, after the York Princesses' wedding, people started to know more about them and perhaps less cynical, when they found out about their charity works (which are very close to Beatrice and Eugenie).

The papers are not less cynical..Generally Im sure they dont have personal feelings for any Royal.. They just regard them as fodder for stories..
but its probable that Meghan did draw away some fire, because she was new and new brides now get a lot of criticism rather than the honeymoon period they used to get.... But usually, in time, the "unpopular royal" finds that their position has faded into acceptance or ignoring.. Anne was disliked very much years ago. She then got a period of admiration for her hard work.. and then she just faded into not being noticed very much... Probably had Meghan stayed, she would have found the same cycle happening to her.. that in a few years she'd move into "acceptance with mild tolerance," and would not have that much attention paid to her as the Cambridges would be taking more of it and in another few years, the Cambridge kids would be getting more notice. That happened to the queen's younger children as Will and Harry grew older...
I think that now Bea and Eugenie are drifting into a " They're ok, we dont mind them.." stage -and they will fade out of press notice as they become wives and mothers and are just seen as minor royals who are OK, who do a little charity work and dont attract much attention, one way or the other....

 

[Denville]

yes - very true.
Unfortunately the criticism is seen as the sentiment of the majority of the people, just because it is online and liked. And then the sentiment of the online community is pulled through to the general opinion. I am always concerned when people, especially young people match their opinion to what they are told to think about that they see online.
The criticism of all royals see increasingly as the media, not only the tabloid press are coming to regard social media as sources of news. And rather as correct barometers of attitude. It is unfair - terribly for all concerned. Not a single royal are treated like people, but I think that says a lot of society, not about the royals.
I think that one royal is currently doing work under a pseudonym - I wonder if that will come out one day - not that I actually want it to. I doubt it will even acknowledged either way . But how are critics going to say that the success was due to him been in the royal family, when it is done anonymously.

If a royal is abel to "do work under a pseudonym" then he must be a fairly minor royal.. and not likely to attract much press notice anyway...

 

[Durham]

It is difficult to build a career when any job one holds leads to accusations of conflict of interest or influence peddling. Unfortunately that is what happens in the UK to younger children of the sovereign.

Yes it is unfortunate. On the other hand the more it happens the more people will just get used to it I suppose.

The alternative is for younger children to continue to carry out public duties & I suspect there's even less appetite for that from the public. There's certainly not a great amount of interest from what I can see.

 

[Durham]

The York princesses, especially Beatrice, were for years pilloried in the gutter press for "taking away jobs" from other, more "needy" or "deserving" people. Yet if they were not seen to work, they were "lazy" and living off the taxpayers. Eugenie has worked steadily since she graduated university, in the field she received her degree in no less, and still had the press focusing on her "holidays" many of which were actually business trips with the after work hours down-time being what hit the papers.

The media is beastly of course. That won't change probably but public attitudes towards relatives of the monarch working will hopefully mature & with luck they will be left to lead relatively private independent lives.

It will have to be a generational shift in attitudes towards individuals who just happen to be related to the monarch. Healthier for all in the end.

 

[Claire]

If a royal is abel to "do work under a pseudonym" then he must be a fairly minor royal.. and not likely to attract much press notice anyway...

lol - sorry let me explain. How will the public react if Banksy turns out to be Prince Micheal?

 

[duchessrachel]

For those of you who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries, do you feel the Monarchy will last long enough for William to be crowned King? I hope it does and I hope I am alive to see it, but I am just wondering what the general feeling is.

 

[AC21091968]

For those of you who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries, do you feel the Monarchy will last long enough for William to be crowned King? I hope it does and I hope I am alive to see it, but I am just wondering what the general feeling is.

As an Australian, I think it will depend what Charles would do as King. Currently, most republicans (anti-monarchist) that I have seen on public platform or even those I meet privately like the Queen. They even suggested that the debate of Republicanism or Constitutional Monarchy should happen once Charles becomes King. Currently, I think the Charles is still not popular amongst non-royal watchers (those not interested in royal family), republicans or even some monarchists. Two main reason that I could think of

• The War of the Wales (mainly on Charles, Diana and Camilla)
• The tendency for Charles to get into politics or other highly contentious social issues

 

[Denville]

lol - sorry let me explain. How will the public react if Banksy turns out to be Prince Micheal?

Since Prince Michael has worked (at least been invovled in business) for years, I wouldn't say that's a good example...

 

[Lilyflo]

For those of you who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries, do you feel the Monarchy will last long enough for William to be crowned King? I hope it does and I hope I am alive to see it, but I am just wondering what the general feeling is.

I am sure it will because in order for us to ditch the monarchy, we'd have to have a government for whom this was enough of a priority to include within their election manifesto. Given that all polls show that the monarchy is largely supported (or at least not hated enough to want to ditch it), I can't see any major political party even considering the issue.

I think there will be a small dip in support when Charles becomes King but I'm sure the institution will survive that and William will inherit the crown.

 

[Denville]

There are many years to go, probably before William is near the Crown.. so who can say?

 

[VictoriaB]

For those of you who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries, do you feel the Monarchy will last long enough for William to be crowned King? I hope it does and I hope I am alive to see it, but I am just wondering what the general feeling is.

As a dual British and Australian citizen, I think the monarchy in the UK will last and William will be crowned king.

I think it's more likely that when the Queen dies there will be another referendum in Australia. Whether it will result in a republic will depend on how the question is posed.

Last time we were presented with monarchy or a particular republican model that not everyone was in favour of (an appointed President rather than a directly elected one) so some people who wanted an elected President decided against voting for that model and voted instead to retain the monarchy, splitting the republican vote to some degree. If the question posed is more a simple do you support amending the system of government to a republican system - yes/no and we'll sort out the details later, then I think there might be a change to a republic.

 

[Blog Real]

The Queen will turn 95 as early as 2021, so the question of succession and the future of the monarchy will be increasingly addressed.
I think William will be king and that the monarchy will survive Charles.
From what I read and see the monarchy is still very popular and I don't think that will change when Charles becomes king.
By the time Charles becomes king people's eyes will be even more put on William and Kate and their popularity should increase even more.
The monarchy will survive I have no doubt.

 

[Denville]

The Queen will turn 95 as early as 2021, so the question of succession and the future of the monarchy will be increasingly addressed.
I think William will be king and that the monarchy will survive Charles.
From what I read and see the monarchy is still very popular and I don't think that will change when Charles becomes king.
By the time Charles becomes king people's eyes will be even more put on William and Kate and their popularity should increase even more.
The monarchy will survive I have no doubt.

I wouldn't say its "very popular"...the queen is respected and liked, Charles, not so much. William and Kate are liked, but they'll be a lot older if they get to the throne.

 

[Blog Real]

I wouldn't say its "very popular"...the queen is respected and liked, Charles, not so much. William and Kate are liked, but they'll be a lot older if they get to the throne.

We don't know when they're going to get to the throne. But I believe people like the monarchy.

 

[Denville]

We don't know when they're going to get to the throne. But I believe people like the monarchy.

More that people tolerate it...It works reasonably well, and the queen's respected so it keeps on...

 

[ACO]

I agree with Denville. We seeing it through the eyes of how people have the ultimate respect for The Queen. She is the monarchy for a lot of people, not the rest of them. It will be interesting how the family is received once she is gone. I suspect not close to the same.

Do I think William will be crowned? Probably but so much can happen in the next 15+ years which I think will be when it would happen, god willing Charles has the longevity in health as his parents.

 

[muriel]

For those of you who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries, do you feel the Monarchy will last long enough for William to be crowned King? I hope it does and I hope I am alive to see it, but I am just wondering what the general feeling is.

I think there are two slightly different questions you haved asked:Will the monarchy in the UK survive? Will some of the other countries that have the Queen as Head of State continue with the arrangement?

My view is as follows:

> The monarchy in the UK will survive. Its popularity may go up and down, as it always does, but the institution seems to see adept at adapting to what the great British public want. Also, as othe rposters have pointed out, few political parties seem to have it on their agenda to turn the UK into a republic.

> As regards other countries with the British monarch as their Head of State, I think we will see a few countries choose to become republics. The rationale does not stand to any test of logic, so I guess it is only a question of time. This, to me, has little to do with the popularity of specific monarchs, but more about the conceptual issue of having a remote and non-resident as your Head of State when you can have a local.

 

[Denville]

I agree with Denville. We seeing it through the eyes of how people have the ultimate respect for The Queen. She is the monarchy for a lot of people, not the rest of them. It will be interesting how the family is received once she is gone. I suspect not close to the same.

Do I think William will be crowned? Probably but so much can happen in the next 15+ years which I think will be when it would happen, god willing Charles has the longevity in health as his parents.

The queen is respected as a person by many people but not by everybody. Its more that the British public even if republican in sentiment, don't want the bother of trying to work out a change and they ride along with what is in place because it works reasonably Ok and much of the time, there are other issues that take up more parliamentary time.. But another big scandal like Andrew, could IMO push things to the point where there IS a strong more active republican movement...This last year we've had Andrew behaving disgracefully and having to be sidelined and Harry voluntarily walking out... Charles isn't as well liked as the queen, so if anything happened in a few years time it might be the end.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Queen will turn 95 as early as 2021, so the question of succession and the future of the monarchy will be increasingly addressed.
I think William will be king and that the monarchy will survive Charles.
From what I read and see the monarchy is still very popular and I don't think that will change when Charles becomes king.
By the time Charles becomes king people's eyes will be even more put on William and Kate and their popularity should increase even more.
The monarchy will survive I have no doubt.

I repeat my mantra: personal popularity says nothing about the desire for keeping a Constitution in which the head of state is "delivered" by hereditary succession.

We see it in all monarchies. While the personal approval of a Crown Princess Victoria, or a King Willem-Alexander, or a King Felipe probably is higher than that of any politician, the support for a monarchy as form of state is eroding, and eroding, and eroding.

The question is not: "Do you like William and Catherine?"

The question is: "Do you like to elect your own head of state, or to keep the current system of hereditary succession?"

It is entirely possible that the outcome on question 1 is that William of Cambridge enjoys great popularity and that the outcome of question 2 is significantly lower than on the previous question.

Complicating factor in the UK is Brexit on an already Covid-strained society. Will it have centrifugal powers to see Northern-Ireland and Scotland go? And what will be the effect of severe economic and society turmoil as well the breaking of the Union, on the general respect and approval for the institutions of state?

 

[Claire]

I do not the monarchy surviving another 50 years. Essential I think we are seeing the end of it - not with the gun fire of the French Revolution but essentially a whisper.
I expect NI and Scotland to have referendums about Head of State, I expect Scotland to stay NI to go - although they might with Commonwealth
Then England will want one as well - which will happen, and that is where is might happen. People really believe that the monarchy costs them an outrageous amount of money and that that money can be better spend on the NHS or education. Most of it is nonsense , but people do believe it. Current sentiment around racism and the monarchy creating its wealth on slavery, imperialism and colonialism will add to the problem and essential whatever throne William or George inherit will be damaged beyond repair. They simply do not represent where the UK wants to appear to be now. God know what the British will want to represent them in 50 years. But it is not the Windsors.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If that is taken to its logical conclusion then Queen regnants would be allowed to have their husbands crowned as Kings. Which, in terms of status and precedent would make no sense at all!

Many features of today's British monarchy "make no sense at all in terms of status and precedent", as it continually implements changes with the times. A divorced or commoner Queen consort would have "made no sense at all in terms of status and precedent" to British royalty living two hundred years ago, but are accepted today.

 

[Blog Real]

I hope the monarchy will survive another 100 years. I love monarchies.

 

[Denville]

I hope the monarchy will survive another 100 years. I love monarchies.

I would not be too sure about 100 years. If it does so, it will be if there are no scandals or disasters and the monarch is respected if not loved.. and I dont think the Commonwealth will last that long. A lot of the ceremonial will disappear also

 

[Somebody]

I think there are two slightly different questions you haved asked:Will the monarchy in the UK survive? Will some of the other countries that have the Queen as Head of State continue with the arrangement?

My view is as follows:

> The monarchy in the UK will survive. Its popularity may go up and down, as it always does, but the institution seems to see adept at adapting to what the great British public want. Also, as othe rposters have pointed out, few political parties seem to have it on their agenda to turn the UK into a republic.

> As regards other countries with the British monarch as their Head of State, I think we will see a few countries choose to become republics. The rationale does not stand to any test of logic, so I guess it is only a question of time. This, to me, has little to do with the popularity of specific monarchs, but more about the conceptual issue of having a remote and non-resident as your Head of State when you can have a local.

I agree: having a remote, non-residential Head of State (does Charles even have the nationalities of all the countries he is supposed to be head of state of within the not too distant future?) will be mostly something of the past. It doesn't really make sense, unless the country is more intertwined politically with the HoS's 'main' country (for example: foreign policy is done by the 'kingdom' and not the individual countries).

 

[Somebody]

I repeat my mantra: personal popularity says nothing about the desire for keeping a Constitution in which the head of state is "delivered" by hereditary succession.

We see it in all monarchies. While the personal approval of a Crown Princess Victoria, or a King Willem-Alexander, or a King Felipe probably is higher than that of any politician, the support for a monarchy as form of state is eroding, and eroding, and eroding.

The question is not: "Do you like William and Catherine?"

The question is: "Do you like to elect your own head of state, or to keep the current system of hereditary succession?"

It is entirely possible that the outcome on question 1 is that William of Cambridge enjoys great popularity and that the outcome of question 2 is significantly lower than on the previous question.

Complicating factor in the UK is Brexit on an already Covid-strained society. Will it have centrifugal powers to see Northern-Ireland and Scotland go? And what will be the effect of severe economic and society turmoil as well the breaking of the Union, on the general respect and approval for the institutions of state?

I don't agree that there is no correlation. While it is important to treat them as two distinct issues, under a more popular monarch a country is less likely to become a republic (which is why for example many people think that Australia is more likely to become a republic under Charles than under Elizabeth - as the general tendency is against remaining a republic but the queen's good will counteracts that somewhat), while a really unpopular monarch might speed up the process of becoming a republic.

 

[Mbruno]

Many features of today's British monarchy "make no sense at all in terms of status and precedent", as it continually implements changes with the times. A divorced or commoner Queen consort would have "made no sense at all in terms of status and precedent" to British royalty living two hundred years ago, but are accepted today.

What strikes me the most is that, even today, we hear British "royal experts" claiming that the British monarch is "different" from other European monarchs because he/she is "anointed" in a coronation ceremony of a religious nature. As if the monarch's constitutional authority proceeded from the Church and/or the coronation ceremony, when, in reality, it is derived solely from British law, which the British Parliament by the way can change at will (including the line of succession to the throne).



It is equally annoying to me to hear those same "experts" in the UK claiming a moral superiority of the British monarch over other European monarchs who chose to abdicate as if abdication due to old age were some kind of mortal sin.



The British monarchy IMHO cannot truly modernize unless it drops this fiction of divine rule by the sovereign, which, again, is at odds with the constitutional reality of the United Kingdom itself. Replacing the coronation with a secular enthronement ceremony and disestablishing the Church of England are necessary steps to finally bring the British monarchy into the 21st century.



Just my honest opinion as a non-subject of the Queen.