The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Durham]

I'm wondering whether the links between the so called CANZUK nations, symbolised by the crown, might become increasingly more important on a political level as the century goes on. All four nations are (the UK by recent choice of course) overshadowed by larger nearby blocs.

Relations between the four may become more important in the real world & not just based on some sentimental attachment & shared history.

As a common (although legally distinct) institution the crown might take on a new lease of life.

Just a thought. Not too political for the RF's I hope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANZUK

 

[Mbruno]

I'm wondering whether the links between the so called CANZUK nations, symbolised by the crown, might become increasingly more important on a political level as the century goes on. All four nations are (the UK by recent choice of course) overshadowed by larger nearby blocs.

Relations between the four may become more important in the real world & not just based on some sentimental attachment & shared history.

As a common (although legally distinct) institution the crown might take on a new lease of life.

Just a thought. Not too political for the RF's I hope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANZUK

It would be great if posters from Canada, Australia and New Zealand could give their perspective on the topic. If you allow me, however, I would like to comment briefly on the situation in North America in particular.

According to the Wikipedia, the United States accounted in 2018 for 76.2 % of Canadian exports and 52.2 % of its imports. Geography and the relative size of the economies of the two countries make it virtually impossible for Canada not to have an economy that is closely integrated to the US, especially in some manufacturing sectors like motor vehicles and auto parts where Canadian industry consists mostly of cross-border American transplants, sometimes in neighboring cities on the two sides of the border.

Nevertheless, my humble impression is that Canada and the US always had a somewhat difficult relationship, which was actually openly hostile before the American Civil War (when the possible annexation of parts of British North America by the US was still a real threat) and turned friendly, but never "warm" later. English Canada was originally settled by the American loyalists following the War of Independence in the 13 colonies and Canada clung to the Crown and, later, to the Empire not least because it saw it as a defense against US expansionism and a way to reaffirm a distinct identity from the Americans.

For the French Canadians, on the other hand, it was a matter of national survival: despite Quebec's recent flirtation with separatism over the past 50 years, the historic truth is that the Crown, starting with the Quebec Act of 1774 (denounced BTW by Jefferson in the US Declaration of Independence) and, then, much later, the BNA Act of 1867, which created the Confederation, offered the French Canadians a reasonable compromise, which enabled them to survive as a minority preserving their distinct language, culture and civil law in a much bigger Anglophone North America. Needless to say, under the United States, that would have been impossible as they would have been inevitably "assimilated" as other minorities were in the territories that the US gained from France, Spain and Mexico.

Nowadays, I don't think the Crown has the same importance in the collective national mindset and most Canadians are probably at best indifferent to it. However, Canada has been able (in my opinion successfully) to turn the Crown and the Queen into national Canadian institutions with characteristics that differ from those in the UK. We see it for example in the Canadian system of national honors, which replaced most of the old imperial orders (except for the Order of Merit and the Royal Victorian Order_ the latter only at grades of Commander or below), and in the role that the Governor General, as the Crown's representative, came to assume in the administration of that system (which is still established incidentally by LPs issued by the Queen).

Overall, I see the monarchy lasting longer in Canada than in Australia for example, not only because it is constitutionally difficult to abolish it (it requires the consent of the federal Parliament and of all 10 provinces), but because there is no good reason to do it and no alternative system to put in place which all regions of the country and all ethnic groups within the country can agree on. Unsurprisingly, unlike in Australia or New Zealand, there is no major Canadian political party calling for a republic now. Whether that will change when Queen Elizabeth II passes away, it remains to be seen.

 

[victor1319]

It would be great if posters from Canada, Australia and New Zealand could give their perspective on the topic.

I second this!

Especially since I think, that the "Monarchy over and behind the Oceans" is a very difficult subject for the British Royal Family: On one hand there are these cultural roots, which are embodied by the Royals. On the other hand might an insistance on these cultural roots be seen as "euro-centric", yeah, perhaps even outright racist... - and because of this the British Royal Family has little other choice, than to chose an "common wealthish", "multicultural" angle in the relatioship to these countries.

So the left hand hinders the right hand here and the other way around!

 

[Mbruno]

what roles? Its more than likely that they (Charlotte and Louis) will not be full time royals by the time William is king. Things wil have changed to the point where younger children only do a litlte royal work...

I wouldn't go that far. While I expect that some slimming down will take place, I still believe Charlotte and Louis will be full-time royals.


William and Catherine, plus George, Charlotte, Louis and respective spouses is the minimum size of a working RF in a country like the UK with a heavy royal workload. I don't see the Firm going lower than that.


It will be interesting to see though if Charlotte's husband will also do royal work breaking with the tradition of royal wives being full-time working royals, but royal husbands having private careers.

 

[Lilyflo]

William and Catherine, plus George, Charlotte, Louis and respective spouses is the minimum size of a working RF in a country like the UK with a heavy royal workload.

No it isn't. The workload is elastic to fit the number of paid members. It's as heavy as they want to make it and can be reduced a great deal to fit a smaller working family. The core, essential work can be covered by the monarch & heir so there's absolutely no need for Charlotte or Louis to become working royals.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As points of comparison: Spain, with a population approximately three-quarters that of the United Kingdom, is currently able to make do with two working royals. Japan, with a population double that of the United Kingdom, may very well have to do the same some decades from now, and there is little anxiety among the Japanese public concerning that possibility.

 

[Denville]

No it isn't. The workload is elastic to fit the number of paid members. It's as heavy as they want to make it and can be reduced a great deal to fit a smaller working family. The core, essential work can be covered by the monarch & heir so there's absolutely no need for Charlotte or Louis to become working royals.

I think taht the trend is to have less and less working royals and it will go that way by the time Will is King. At the moment things are in transition, but in due course the older relatives will retire and wont be replaced. Harry and meg have gone, and I think the fact of their going HAS turned attention to the set up iwht younger sons. what if they want a career of their own or resent the restrictions or just aren't that devoted to their older sibling and willing to take second place to him or her?

 

[Darius1]

As points of comparison: Spain, with a population approximately three-quarters that of the United Kingdom, is currently able to make do with two working royals. Japan, with a population double that of the United Kingdom, may very well have to do the same some decades from now, and there is little anxiety among the Japanese public concerning that possibility.

The number of patronages that the Spanish and Japanese Royal Family hold, and the expectation that they are seen out and about opening hospitals etc is significantly less than for the British Royal Family. Despite a desire to reduce working members of the Family it is my view that at least 10 active members are necessary to ensure they remain active and relevant around the country.

 

[Denville]

The number of patronages that the Spanish and Japanese Royal Family hold, and the expectation that they are seen out and about opening hospitals etc is significantly less than for the British Royal Family. Despite a desire to reduce working members of the Family it is my view that at least 10 active members are necessary to ensure they remain active and relevant around the country.

I think in the end cost will win out. People in the UK may still "expect" to see some royals opening hospitals but I think that that sort of interest in royals has been diminishing for years now. For many, it seems like "make work" to give the Royals visibility and to make it look like they are doing something.

 

[Darius1]

Cost undoubtedly will come into it somewhere along the line, as well as removing the risk of young, minor Royals bringing disrepute upon the institution but I am always struck by the positive impression on those that attend a Royal event, or meet a Royal in a presentation line - its something akin to being star-struck, giddiness etc. The magic of Royalty is still felt in UK. I think the Royals and their advisors still agree that the best way to keep the institution popular and relevant is through connection to Charity and Armed Forces and undoubtedly this will continue, and so will need active members to ensure maximum reach.

 

[Mbruno]

The number of patronages that the Spanish and Japanese Royal Family hold, and the expectation that they are seen out and about opening hospitals etc is significantly less than for the British Royal Family. Despite a desire to reduce working members of the Family it is my view that at least 10 active members are necessary to ensure they remain active and relevant around the country.

On top of that, the BRF also does Commonwealth tours and other overseas engagements. Even if countries like Australia, New Zealand or Jamaica become republics within the next 30 years, I don't see Commonwealth tours ending entirely.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

the expectation that [the Spanish and Japanese royal families] are seen out and about opening hospitals etc is significantly less than for the British Royal Family.

I view it differently, although I would welcome more information. An ordinary hospital visit from a British royal such as the Earl of Wessex appears to me to attract few viewers even from dedicated royalty watchers, much less the general public.

It is arguable that public visibility is even more crucial to the Spanish and Japanese royal families than the British, given that they lack the stable public support (Spain) or political role (Japan) that the British royal family holds.

The number of patronages that the Spanish and Japanese Royal Family hold [...] is significantly less than for the British Royal Family.

The question, however, is whether the British monarchy needs to maintain a significantly higher number of patronages than the Spanish and Japanese royal families.

On top of that, the BRF also does Commonwealth tours and other overseas engagements.

The Spanish and Japanese royal families also do tours and overseas engagements and have countries with which they maintain historical ties.

 

[Darius1]

If we count things in terms of views or hits on Social Media this may be true. However the mere fact of having a member of the Royal Family out and about, meeting and greeting even a small number of people is enormously important in maintaining the relevance and popularity of the institution. Even in the past there must have been many, many humdrum royal visits that attracted few members of the public by Royals such as Princess Margaret, Princess Alexandra or the Gloucesters. These visits still kept the institution visible which is what maintains the popularity. I think it was Queen Mary that began this strategy in the years after WW1, and I think it remains a sensible approach today.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If we count things in terms of views or hits on Social Media this may be true. However the mere fact of having a member of the Royal Family out and about, meeting and greeting even a small number of people is enormously important in maintaining the relevance and popularity of the institution. Even in the past there must have been many, many humdrum royal visits that attracted few members of the public by Royals such as Princess Margaret, Princess Alexandra or the Gloucesters. These visits still kept the institution visible which is what maintains the popularity. I think it was Queen Mary that began this strategy in the years after WW1, and I think it remains a sensible approach today.

It certainly sounds sensible to me, but if it holds true for Britain then one would expect it to hold true for monarchies which are institutionally and culturally comparable. But the other European kingdoms have all elected to downsize their numbers of working royals, and they and their advisers must have considered the effects of fewer visits and concluded that the positives are more significant than the negatives.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It will be interesting to see though if Charlotte's husband will also do royal work breaking with the tradition of royal wives being full-time working royals, but royal husbands having private careers.

Indeed, or to see if they break tradition in the other direction and allow royal wives to have private careers.

There is a YouGov poll from 2018 in which 49% of the respondents stated that royal wives ought to continue on with their private careers, compared to 24% stating that they should not.

Although, seeing as the Netherlands is alone of the kingdoms of Europe in having broken tradition in this manner as of today, perhaps it is improbable in the short term.

 

[Darius1]

Indeed, or to see if they break tradition in the other direction and allow royal wives to have private careers.

There is a YouGov poll from 2018 in which 49% of the respondents stated that royal wives ought to continue on with their private careers, compared to 24% stating that they should not.

Although, seeing as the Netherlands is alone of the kingdoms of Europe in having broken tradition in this manner as of today, perhaps it is improbable in the short term.

In my view anybody with an HRH should not have private career. As the law stands in UK a wife automatically takes her husband's rank, hence the HRH. An HRH with a private career is a liability for conflict of interest and allegations of benefiting from position. Much better that HRH are entirely dedicated to the Monarchy and paid for by the Sovereign.

With Brexit I would imagine the scope for Royal employment could grow as roving ambassadors. In an era when the UK is looking to rebuild its independence on the world stage a sizeable number of working Royals is surely recommendable. When we take into consideration retirement and reduction in the public duties of the current Queen's children over the coming decade and the demise of her cousins we will find ourselves with the smallest Royal Family we have seen in a century. I think we will be stretched to be able to cover the ground.

 

[MARG]

There is not a Profession nor Career that will stand the test of the throne. It is too rife with complications and accusations of unfair trading.

 

[Fem]

Tbh, for me comparing the BRF to the rest of European royal families is a miss, because it's just a different situation. It is now and I think it'll continue to be different, especially in the matter of importance, not only domestic but also international.

I don't think the model of 2 working royals would ever work for the BRF. It doesn't mean the monarchy won't get (quite naturally) slimmed down, but I'd be VERY surprised if all of the Cambridges children won't end up being working royals. There is much ground to cover, there are domestic expectations of the BRF and there's also the way they're being used (not in a negative way) on the international scale that simply doesn't compare to the rest of european monarchies.

If I had to guess, I'd say the safe number of people is somewhere between 5-8, not counting the monarch and their spouse. This will allow them to continue charity work, to introduce the young royals to the work carefully and give them a bit of breathing space, to meet the expectations of people and the government. It's also a safe bet in case of one royal or royal couple isn't that popular or wants to leave, because it'll be opportunity for others to step up and do the job.

 

[Denville]

In my view anybody with an HRH should not have private career. As the law stands in UK a wife automatically takes her husband's rank, hence the HRH. An HRH with a private career is a liability for conflict of interest and allegations of benefiting from position. Much better that HRH are entirely dedicated to the Monarchy and paid for by the Sovereign.

With Brexit I would imagine the scope for Royal employment could grow as roving ambassadors. In an era when the UK is looking to rebuild its independence on the world stage a sizeable number of working Royals is surely recommendable. When we take into consideration retirement and reduction in the public duties of the current Queen's children over the coming decade and the demise of her cousins we will find ourselves with the smallest Royal Family we have seen in a century. I think we will be stretched to be able to cover the ground.

Honestly don't think it will happen. I think both Charles and William will follow the continental pattern and have about 4 or 5 people working. No way is Ch going to pay for Eugenie and Bea to be "working HRHs" and i don't think teh public would want to see them. There is still a certain fascination in "meeting the queen" etc. but I think its a lot less than it used to be, and the smaller royal weddings of the last years prove that the public doesn't get thrilled by a royal wedding the way they used to...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Tbh, for me comparing the BRF to the rest of European royal families is a miss, because it's just a different situation. It is now and I think it'll continue to be different, especially in the matter of importance, not only domestic but also international.

[...] There is much ground to cover, there are domestic expectations of the BRF and there's also the way they're being used (not in a negative way) on the international scale that simply doesn't compare to the rest of european monarchies.

Can you explain what you mean in terms of international importance and use? I'm aware that the British royals receive the greatest amount of international publicity, but don't understand how that translates into a higher minimum workload.

In my view anybody with an HRH should not have private career. As the law stands in UK a wife automatically takes her husband's rank, hence the HRH. An HRH with a private career is a liability for conflict of interest and allegations of benefiting from position. Much better that HRH are entirely dedicated to the Monarchy and paid for by the Sovereign.

That is a very valid concern, and might be dealt with by abstaining from using the theoretical HRH, as with the Wessex children.

ETA: For discreet careers, like those of the York princesses or the Michaels of Kent, it seems that abstaining from using it commercially is considered sufficient.

There is not a Profession nor Career that will stand the test of the throne. It is too rife with complications and accusations of unfair trading.

I imagine that the discussion of royals pursuing private careers only encompasses those not directly in line to the throne.

 

[KellyAtLast]

If the Windsors insist on maintaining the same workload they have now and if they refuse to bring in Beatrice and Eugenie even on part time basis then they will have to start giving George royal engagements as soon as he graduates from university. Of course he will go through military training like his dad but he can do royal work on his breaks from training. Unfortunately George will not have the luxury William got being part time royal and part time air ambulance pilot. For the younger siblings they can look to what the Bernadottes are doing. Only pay them per engagement that they take on they can also do this for the york girls..No i do not think Charlottes husband would be needed as full time working royal. Both husbands of the current princess royal did not become working royals her Current husband may take on some royal engagements but thats it. And about the Commonwealth. Well what about it? it's not like they are touring the commonwealth every year. But here is an idea to satisfy the commonwealth when george graduates university why dont they send him to tour the commonwealth himself....
For Future grandchildren of William. Charlottes kids should be like princess anne kids and louis kids should be like the wessex kids.

 

[Denville]

If the Windsors insist on maintaining the same workload they have now and if they refuse to bring in Beatrice and Eugenie even on part time basis then they will have to start giving George royal engagements as soon as he graduates from university. Of course he will go through military training like his dad but he can do royal work on his breaks from training. Unfortunately George will not have the luxury William got being part time royal and part time air ambulance pilot. For the younger siblings they can look to what the Bernadottes are doing. Only pay them per engagement that they take on they can also do this for the york girls..No i do not think Charlottes husband would be needed as full time working royal. Both husbands of the current princess royal did not become working royals her Current husband may take on some royal engagements but thats it. And about the Commonwealth. Well what about it? it's not like they are touring the commonwealth every year. But here is an idea to satisfy the commonwealth when george graduates university why dont they send him to tour the commonwealth himself....
For Future grandchildren of William. Charlottes kids should be like princess anne kids and louis kids should be like the wessex kids.

they're not going to use Bea and Eugenie. They may help out a bit on an "as needed" basis, but they're not that popular - and using them would not go down well.. and Charles IMO just isn't going to do it. He will accept that the RF have to do less charity work, and possibly in time the Commonwealth side of the job will be slimmed down too..
THe essential work is doable by a small number of people. The large set of charities was something that built up over teh 20th Century and isn't sustainable now.

 

[Darius1]

I agree that the York Princesses do not appear to be widely popular but that is easily resolved by having them out and about meeting people and doing charity work, and promotion from the Palace. The two Princesses have suffered because of their parents and I do think there is a degree of sympathy for them from the public. Both Princesses do seem to have an appreciation for their position and a sense of duty, rather than entitlement that comes with it. They are Princesses of the Blood and HRH's, so in my view should be working Royals. Popularity is easily leveraged. To maintain the reach, proximity and prestige of the Royal Family a larger team is necessary.

 

[Denville]

I agree that the York Princesses do not appear to be widely popular but that is easily resolved by having them out and about meeting people and doing charity work, and promotion from the Palace. The two Princesses have suffered because of their parents and I do think there is a degree of sympathy for them from the public. Both Princesses do seem to have an appreciation for their position and a sense of duty, rather than entitlement that comes with it. They are Princesses of the Blood and HRH's, so in my view should be working Royals. Popularity is easily leveraged. To maintain the reach, proximity and prestige of the Royal Family a larger team is necessary.

I dont think that the RF or at least Charles would agree, and he's the one who will be in charge in the near future. And the British public, who pay the piper, dont want a large team any more.
I doubt also if Bea and Eugenie want to do royal duties or woudl be liked all that much if they did. By all accounts they are not keen on "being princesses" and want to lead a normal life. If you are saying that they should be working royals because of their rank, then so should Edwards children. Even if their parents didn't want them to have HRH or the rank of Prince/ess, they are grandchildren of the monarch.... and theoretically should be HRH.
I don't think it is going ot happen. They may pick up a little mre charity work, but both of them have jobs and are at an age where they will probably want to have children, so they will hardly want to take on more work...

 

[Darius1]

Of course any decision is up to the future King Charles and his advisors. I haven't seen any polls stating that the British public want a slimmed down Monarchy, in fact I think the British public rather like the pomp and circumstance that the Monarchy can switch on. I don't think there is a desire for some sort of watered down, bicycling Monarchy a la Dutch. The British public can be grudging, and fickle at times but I really do believe that Monarchy is a reminder of the one time grandeur and status of the nation that the public actually need and like. As we move towards Brexit such assets will become even more important to project Britain on the world stage.
The Wessex situation is different to the Yorks. An expectation was set after their parents marriage that they would not be HRH's and would to all intent and purposes live a private life.
Let's see what happens. A part of me thinks that the relegation of the York Princesses has more to do with a poor relationship between Charles and Andrew and the Princesses are collateral victims.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If the Windsors insist on maintaining the same workload they have now and if they refuse to bring in Beatrice and Eugenie even on part time basis then they will have to start giving George royal engagements as soon as he graduates from university. [...] For the younger siblings they can look to what the Bernadottes are doing. Only pay them per engagement that they take on they can also do this for the york girls..No i do not think Charlottes husband would be needed as full time working royal. Both husbands of the current princess royal did not become working royals her Current husband may take on some royal engagements but thats it.

Both wives of her younger brothers did become working royals. I am not expecting the Windsors to insist on maintaining the same official workload they have now, but should they insist on it (while continuing to exclude the York sisters) then I suppose all three Cambridge children and their spouses would eventually be needed.

 

[Lilyflo]

I really do believe that Monarchy is a reminder of the one time grandeur and status of the nation that the public actually need and like.

Some of the public might like that reminder but not everyone does because a lot of that grandeur and status was gained by means that are shameful eg slavery, piracy, imperialism, racism, theft and buckets of bloodshed. The monarchy is also a reminder of entrenched privilege, deference and immense wealth, which isn't to everyone's taste either.

I'm a monarchist despite all of the above but I know many people who aren't and others who just tolerate them because the idea of President (insert your own dismal politician) is worse.

Charles and his advisers have their ear to the ground and they'll do whatever it takes to remain relevant and if that involves slimming down the working family, he won't hesitate (and neither will William).

 

[Denville]

Some of the public might like that reminder but not everyone does because a lot of that grandeur and status was gained by means that are shameful eg slavery, piracy, imperialism, racism, theft and buckets of bloodshed. The monarchy is also a reminder of entrenched privilege, deference and immense wealth, which isn't to everyone's taste either.

I'm a monarchist despite all of the above but I know many people who aren't and others who just tolerate them because the idea of President (insert your own dismal politician) is worse.

Charles and his advisers have their ear to the ground and they'll do whatever it takes to remain relevant and if that involves slimming down the working family, he won't hesitate (and neither will William).

There isn't the same wish for the monarchy's ceremonials as there used to be. I don't think it has much to do with slavery etc., simply that people just aren't that interested in the same way. A royal wedding used to elicit grumbles about the cost but people still enjoyed it. Now, even the second son of the future King has married at Windsor...
Few people wanted to see Eugenie's wedding and I got the feeling that the people who got really really excited about Beas wedding.. or Archie's birth and so on, are non Brits.
Charles is concerned about costs, very rightly and he will do what's necessary to keep the monarchy working well and with the costs under control.

 

[Mbruno]

There isn't the same wish for the monarchy's ceremonials as there used to be. I don't think it has much to do with slavery etc., simply that people just aren't that interested in the same way. A royal wedding used to elicit grumbles about the cost but people still enjoyed it. Now, even the second son of the future King has married at Windsor...
Few people wanted to see Eugenie's wedding and I got the feeling that the people who got really really excited about Beas wedding.. or Archie's birth and so on, are non Brits.
Charles is concerned about costs, very rightly and he will do what's necessary to keep the monarchy working well and with the costs under control.

If you think about it, prior to the 20th century, royal weddings were private events, weren't they? I guess it was the introduction of film and television that changed things, so in a way we may be back to how things used to be in that respect.

The court ceremonial has already been greatly slimmed down under Elizabeth II. The white-tie opera nights or the coming out ceremonies for daughters of the aristocracy at the Palace are long gone. In fact, there are now no more than two or three white-tie events per year in the British court. Even the state opening of Parliament has been toned down in recent years citing particular circumstances as excuses, but I suspect that will end up being permanent in the next reign.

Things that I believe will be kept are the solemn ceremonies/services associated with the orders of knighthood (like Garter Day) and national or Commonwealth religious services in general, and the official celebration of the monarch's birthday (Trooping).

 

[Denville]

If you think about it, prior to the 20th century, royal weddings were private events, weren't they? I guess it was the introduction of film and television that changed things, so in a way we may be back to how things used to be in that respect.

The court ceremonial has already been greatly slimmed down under Elizabeth II. The white-tie opera nights or the coming out ceremonies for daughters of the aristocracy at the Palace are long gone. In fact, there are now no more than two or three white-tie events per year in the British court. Even the state opening of Parliament has been toned down in recent years citing particular circumstances as excuses, but I suspect that will end up being permanent in next reign.

Things that I believe will be kept are the solemn ceremonies/services associated with the orders of knighthood (like Garter Day) and national or Commonwealth religious services in general, and the official celebration of the monarch's birthday (Trooping).

Yes most ceremonial occasions have been slimmed down, and I don't think that will change. But I think that for some time royal weddings were something that thte public enjoyed even if they were not interested in the RF most of the time. IN the past few years, the enthusiasm for them has faded and tehy will revert to being private affairs, except for the heir or oldest daughter...