The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Duc_et_Pair]

For the good order: using the royal position to make profit is a no-no in all monarchies. But everyone understands that doors will swing open for a Mr Mountbatten-Windsor or a Mrs De Bourbon, just because of their name, just because they know the top who-is-who in society. That is of all times and exists in all cultures.

A pure no-no is the use of the title, or royal monograms, or royal crests in commercial outings. We never saw Infanta Elena or her then husband (who holds a senior position in a luxury giant) making any commercial reference to Louis Vuitton, to Dior, etc.

The late Prince Johan Friso was founder-shareholder of WizzAir, the largest low-cost airliner for East European destinations (a fleet of 125 Airbus planes). This was so hidden in publicity that the Dutch were barely aware of the King's brother having business in an airline company.

I think that is the recipe for Harry and Meghan: do it not as HRH The Duke of Sussex, so not use your royal monogram to sell almond milk, to not appear in a L'Oréal advert for youthful and smooth skin. Then it will all come well.

 

[lucien]

As to the initial question,yes,the Monarchy will survive,ofcourse it will!!
Aunt Lillibeth will see to that,even though it is a scandal by that upstart starmongerer to put HM in this position at 93,or any age for that matter...

 

[Jacknch]

Indeed, could we please stay on topic and discuss the finer details of the recent events concerning the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in the correct thread?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The recent events will be tough on William and his family in the long run with two Senior royals of his Generation gone. Harry's Part supporting a King William, plus a wife of Harry who would have taken on the royal bread and Butter job will be very hard to replace.

 

[wyevale]

Taking everything into account do you think the institution of the monarchy is good or bad for Britain?

Good for Britain 52%
Bad for Britain 13%
Neither good nor bad 28%
Don’t know 7%

Deltapoll 9-11 Jan

 

[Lilyflo]

Taking everything into account do you think the institution of the monarchy is good or bad for Britain?

Good for Britain 52%
Bad for Britain 13%
Neither good nor bad 28%
Don’t know 7%

Deltapoll 9-11 Jan

Good to see only 13% think it's bad for Britain.

 

[Soula]

The monaarchy will survive this as it has weathered other storms.

I'd like to see some of William's cousins pick up some of the patronages to spread the load.

The Queen receives support from some of her cousins.

 

[Denville]

The monaarchy will survive this as it has weathered other storms.

I'd like to see some of William's cousins pick up some of the patronages to spread the load.

The Queen receives support from some of her cousins.

Yes the queen did but times have changed and ther'es not going to be funding for various cousins or whatever picking up the patronages. The trend ha been for most monarchies to reduce their working members to a very few.. just the monarch and consort, and the heir and consort... with possibly one younger sibling helping. That was the model the RF were adopting but Hary has now puled out of it...
Williams cousins are pretty much all engaged in careers of their own.. and probably would not want full tiem royal life..

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Williams cousins are pretty much all engaged in careers of their own.. and probably would not want full tiem royal life..

I wonder whether the Prince of Wales intends to allow the future Prince Archie of Sussex a choice to become a working member of the Royal Family. In my view it would only be fair to treat him identically to the York princesses, but possibly Charles' planned model is to reduce the working membership to his own descendants, rather than reducing it to children of any sovereign (and wives).

 

[Denville]

I wonder whether the Prince of Wales intends to allow the future Prince Archie of Sussex a choice to become a working member of the Royal Family. In my view it would only be fair to treat him identically to the York princesses, but possibly Charles' planned model is to reduce the working membership to his own descendants, rather than reducing it to children of any sovereign (and wives).

I don't think it was expected but its so far in the future, it would be more likely to be William who is likely to decide on that one. I think that Chalres expected and trained his 2 sons.. and they knew that although they had a bit of time to have other careers in the end they were due to do royal duties... but its open as to whether W's younger kids or Archie are likely to be working royals.

 

[Ista]

I wonder whether the Prince of Wales intends to allow the future Prince Archie of Sussex a choice to become a working member of the Royal Family. In my view it would only be fair to treat him identically to the York princesses, but possibly Charles' planned model is to reduce the working membership to his own descendants, rather than reducing it to children of any sovereign (and wives).

As things stand now I suspect that the question is moot because the royal family isn't going to be seeing enough of Archie for the question to arise.

 

[Mbruno]

I wonder whether the Prince of Wales intends to allow the future Prince Archie of Sussex a choice to become a working member of the Royal Family. In my view it would only be fair to treat him identically to the York princesses, but possibly Charles' planned model is to reduce the working membership to his own descendants, rather than reducing it to children of any sovereign (and wives).

I think it is pretty clear he won’t be Prince Archie of Sussex now or never actually after the Sussex debacle.

 

[SOS]

I think the Queen should ask the York sisters to step up. They need a long-term solution because most working royals are getting old.

Maybe royals should only carry the Royal Highness title if they're working royals. It feel more fair and it makes the royal family more flexible. Harry would lose the HRH title, but if he wants to become a working royal again and the Queen or King allows it, he will get the title back.

 

[Mbruno]

I think the Queen should ask the York sisters to step up. They need a long-term solution because most working royals are getting old.

Maybe royals should only carry the Royal Highness title if they're working royals. It feel more fair and it makes the royal family more flexible. Harry would lose the HRH title, but if he wants to become a working royal again and the Queen or King allows it, he will get the title back.

There is no precedent really for taking away the HRH of someone who used the style from birth. The only exception I can think of was the Royal Titles Deprivation Act during World War I , but that was done by an act of Parliament and it had to follow a pre-determined procedure to ensure that the affected person was certified as an enemy combatant .

Divorced wives like Sarah and Diana and, significantly, Wallis Simpson were stripped of / denied the HRH, but Harry is in a different position as a prince of the Blood. I honestly don’t see the Queen going that way unless Harry voluntarily renounces his HRH ( does a Patricia of Connaught basically.).

 

[SOS]

There is no precedent really for taking away the HRH of someone who used the style from birth. The only exception I can think of was the Royal Titles Deprivation Act during World War I , but that was done by an act of Parliament and it had to follow a pre-determined procedure to ensure that the affected person was certified as an enemy combatant .

Divorced wives like Sarah and Diana and, significantly, Wallis Simpson were stripped of / denied the HRH, but Harry is in a different position as a prince of the Blood. I honestly don’t see the Queen going that way unless Harry voluntarily renounces his HRH ( do a Patricia of Connaught basically.).

I can see it happen if it becomes a new rule for all British royals.

 

[wyevale]

In the words of the [unlamented] ex Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr Bercow :

"Precedents are made to be broken "..

 

[Mbruno]

I can see it happen if it becomes a new rule for all British royals.

What would the rule be though ? If Harry lost the HRH on the basis that he is not a full-time working royal, then Prince and Princess Michael of Kent and the York princesses for example would have to lose it too and , again, i don’t think the Queen would agree to that.

All rules that have been laid out since the Victorian era to define who is an HRH Prince/Princess in the UK have never been specified in terms of working status but rather in terms of proximity of blood to a sovereign of the United Kingdom with a difference, however, between patrilineal and matrilineal descent, which was consistent with the old rules of male preference primogeniture.

Having said that, I agree that, in the future, HRH should be linked to an expectation of doing at least significant part-time royal work, but that should be clear from birth. When the King of Sweden recently took away the HRH from Prince Carl Philip’s and Princess Madeleine’s children, he justified it exactly in those terms, i.e. the rationale was to clarify who would be expected to have an official role and publicly represent Sweden in the future and who would not.

But those are issues for Charles and-/or William to decide when they are kings. I don’t see a slimming down occurring now that late into the present Queen’s reign.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don't think there has been any suggestion from British royal correspondents or experts that Archie's future HRH Prince title would be impacted by the move to Canada. The United Kingdom has no legislative or constitutional requirement that princes must be brought up within the realm, and at any event Canada is one of the realms of the British Crown.

As far as his possible role as a working royal, he could theoretically attend engagements in Canada as his parents have, even if he never returns to the United Kingdom.

 

[Denville]

Given that H and Meg dotn even want him to use his courtesy title, I doubt if they will wnt him to have an HRH when Charles becomes king...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

While there has been no official statement on the matter, a number of correspondents reported being told last year, by royal sources, that King Charles would continue to apply the Letters Patent of 1917 during his reign.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...e-a-prince-once-charles-is-king-a4137941.html

New Royal baby, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, will become a Prince with his parents’ blessing once his grandfather Prince Charles is King, the Evening Standard has learned.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have agreed that their son will also be given the title “His Royal Highness” which is his right as the grandson of a reigning monarch through the male line.

“The Sussexes have chosen not to give their children courtesy titles at this time, however, on the change of reign the George V convention would apply,” a senior source told the Evening Standard.
​

 

[SOS]

What would the rule be though ? If Harry lost the HRH on the basis that he is not a full-time working royal, then Prince and Princess Michael of Kent and the York princesses for example would have to lose it too and , again, i don’t think the Queen would agree to that.

All rules that have been laid out since the Victorian era to define who is an HRH Prince/Princess in the UK have never been specified in terms of working status but rather in terms of proximity of blood to a sovereign of the United Kingdom with a difference, however, between patrilineal and matrilineal descent, which was consistent with the old rules of male preference primogeniture.

Having said that, I agree that, in the future, HRH should be linked to an expectation of doing at least significant part-time royal work, but that should be clear from birth. When the King of Sweden recently took away the HRH from Prince Carl Philip’s and Princess Madeleine’s children, he justified it exactly in those terms, i.e. the rationale was to clarify who would be expected to have an official role and publicly represent Sweden in the future and whio would not.

But those are issues for Charles and-/or William to decide when they are kings. I don’t see a slimming down occurring now that late into the present Queen’s reign.

Maybe the rule can be that royals who are expected to become working royals, like the children of the monarch or heir, are given the HRH title. If they don't become a working royal or later stop being a working royal, they will lose the title. If one of the royals unexpectedly becomes a working royal they will get the HRH title. If a royal was a working royal but they retired they can keep the title.

If the Queen applies it right now, Harry and Andrew will lose the HRH title. Eugenie, Beatrice and Michael can choose if they want to become a working royal.

 

[_Heather_]

Yes the queen did but times have changed and ther'es not going to be funding for various cousins or whatever picking up the patronages. The trend ha been for most monarchies to reduce their working members to a very few.. just the monarch and consort, and the heir and consort... with possibly one younger sibling helping. That was the model the RF were adopting but Hary has now puled out of it...
Williams cousins are pretty much all engaged in careers of their own.. and probably would not want full tiem royal life..

This is all very true. However, most if not all of the Queen's grandchildren who have their careers (Peter, Zara, Beatrice, and Eugenie) still hold patronages as a part of their own personal charitable work. Granted they've never claimed these to be on behalf of the Queen but they do know and understand what it means to be a patron for a worthy organization. While I agree that they won't be asked to become full time working members of the RF (though I somewhat believe that the York girls should be given the option) I wouldn't be one bit surprised to see any of the four of them, and later on Louise and James, take on a few of the patronages that will need to be filled by the loss of Andrew, Prince Philip, and HM. I doubt that we'll see Harry and Meghan's relationships end with their patronages unless the organizations choose to end them but it's always a possibility. Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that even if they don't become full time working members of the RF it's too early to rule out them taking over some of the patronages on their own as a sort of compromise situation, particularly when Charles and even William come to the throne.

 

[Denville]

This is all very true. However, most if not all of the Queen's grandchildren who have their careers (Peter, Zara, Beatrice, and Eugenie) still hold patronages as a part of their own personal charitable work. Granted they've never claimed these to be on behalf of the Queen but they do know and understand what it means to be a patron for a worthy organization. While I agree that they won't be asked to become full time working members of the RF (though I somewhat believe that the York girls should be given the option) I wouldn't be one bit surprised to see any of the four of them, and later on Louise and James, take on a few of the patronages that will need to be filled by the loss of Andrew, Prince Philip, and HM. I doubt that we'll see Harry and Meghan's relationships end with their patronages unless the organizations choose to end them but it's always a possibility. Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that even if they don't become full time working members of the RF it's too early to rule out them taking over some of the patronages on their own as a sort of compromise situation, particularly when Charles and even William come to the throne.

Its hard to know what will happen. Charles has not wanted to take on other relatives because of the costs.. but now it looks as if he has no choice but to use some of his more distant relatives.. as I don't think Harrry nad meghan will be able to take on any more than they already have...

 

[wyevale]

In the immediate future I expect there to be a visible upsurge in support, for those left 'holding the Baby' - the first indication of which we saw at the Cambridge's engagement today..

 

[_Heather_]

In the immediate future I expect there to be a visible upsurge in support, for those left 'holding the Baby' - the first indication of which we saw at the Cambridge's engagement today..

I agree. But I do think that what's left of the Royal Family will rally brilliantly and make it quite clear that no matter what path Harry and Meghan are on, the rest of them are on a path to both protect and strengthen the monarchy. I realize that the York girls and the Phillips children don't actually perform duties on behalf of the Queen apart from a rare occasion here or there like the Maundy service but I fully expect to see a very public upswing in their sightings and activities that will reflect quite well on the Queen and Company. They may not be "official" but they'll do their bit to show just where the support lies, I imagine.

 

[Mbruno]

Maybe the rule can be that royals who are expected to become working royals, like the children of the monarch or heir, are given the HRH title. If they don't become a working royal or later stop being a working royal, they will lose the title. If one of the royals unexpectedly becomes a working royal they will get the HRH title. If a royal was a working royal but they retired they can keep the title.

If the Queen applies it right now, Harry and Andrew will lose the HRH title. Eugenie, Beatrice and Michael can choose if they want to become a working royal.

Fair enough, but making anyone a "working royal" implies allocating them public funds (either directly or indirectly) and that is something politicians/ Parliament/ the public are increasingly reluctant to do beyond the monarch and the heir properly.


Furthermore, I find it problematic to define what a working royal is. Is Prince Constantijn a working royal ? What about Princes Joachim and Carl Philip ? And Princess Madeleine or Infanta Elena ? Note that all of the former are HRHs; some of them do part-time (very little) royal work while others currently do no work at all in practice.



Again, the problem is that the HRH style has never been linked to working status and, up to today, no European monarchy defines it in those terms. Instead, they all use criteria of proximity of blood to a monarch or heir, or being the heir yourself (or a former monarch upon abdication), or being married to a person in one of those aforementioned categories .



Personally I think an HRH should be expected to be at least a part-timer and be reimbursed then only for the events he/she attends on behalf of the Crown. The heir and the heir's eldest child (if an adult) should be expected to be full-timers and be fully funded / have no other private activity. And I am OK with limiting HRH to children of the monarch, the heir, and children of the heir, plus spouses/widows.



Cadet children of the king/queen, born as HRHs, may keep their HRH when their elder brother/sister becomes monarch and even stay as part-timers, but they would naturally slow down to give room to the adult children of the new monarch who would replace them. Since they are only part-timers, they would simply have fewer engagements and get reimbursed less often. Throughout their adult life, however, they would rely primarily on private income.

 

[_Heather_]

Personally I think an HRH should be expected to be at least a part-timer and be reimbursed then only for the events he/she attends on behalf of the Crown. The heir and the heir's eldest child (if an adult) should be expected to be full-timers and be fully funded / have no other private activity. And I am OK with limiting HRH to children of the monarch, the heir, and children of the heir, plus spouses/widows.

Cadet children of the king/queen, born as HRHs, may keep their HRH when their elder brother/sister becomes monarch and even stay as part-timers, but they would naturally slow down to give room to the adult children of the new monarch who would replace them. Since they are only part-timers, they would simply have fewer engagements and get reimbursed less often. Throughout their adult life, however, they would rely primarily on private income.

I do think this is all quite a good compromise but would add the caveat that security would only be fully funded for the monarch and the heirs (along with spouses) and minor children of said heirs. Otherwise security should only be provided during work on behalf of the monarch or when a specific and credible threat is in play.

 

[King of the Jungle]

It is only fair that Archie be given HRH, as is his right, when Charles becomes King.
He deserves to decide some things about his own self once he is an adult.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think the Queen should ask the York sisters to step up. They need a long-term solution because most working royals are getting old.

Maybe royals should only carry the Royal Highness title if they're working royals. It feel more fair and it makes the royal family more flexible. Harry would lose the HRH title, but if he wants to become a working royal again and the Queen or King allows it, he will get the title back.

The sisters of Queen Beatrix, the sisters of King Juan Carlos, the brothers of King Willem-Alexander, the sisters of King Felipe all are HRH and all of them have a life outside the Royal House.


The difference with the York ladies is that these are no siblings to a King but out of courtesy and prudence I would leave HRH Princess Beatrice of York and HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank as they are. They will be the last grandchildren of a monarch via a junior son to have this style and form of address. No need to take it away from them. They embody a situation which once was Selbstverständlich but is no more.

 

[hel]

I discovered something today that I did not know: the Royal Ballet School's patron is HM and its president is Prince Charles, but its vice-president is Lady Sarah Chatto. I wonder if that model, where Royal-Adjacent members of the monarch's family might be employed in "non-patron, but supportive" honorary positions to give the organizations cachet, while not receiving Sovereign Grant money.