The Future of the British Monarchy 2: Sep 2022 -

[Lilyflo]

The King is no direct descendant, from father or mother, to Saxon Kings. With some zig-zagging and hop-hopping descendance can be traced. The late Duke of Edinburgh was a direct descendant of the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburgs and the Battenbergs. The late Queen was a direct descendant of the Sachsen-Coburgs and the Bowes-Lyons.

How would you describe a direct descendant?

To me, I'm a direct descendant of each parent, grandparent, great-grandparent etc and if you go back 30 generations/1000 years then my direct ancestors number more than a billion! There aren't a billion of course due to my ancestors marrying within themselves and the figure would actually be much lower. There's quite a bit of research done on how many direct ancestors we all have, including the hypothesis that all British heritage people are descended from Edward III and all European heritage people are descended from Charlemagne. Therefore, on that basis, isn't Charles a direct descendant of the Saxon kings (as I would be too)?

 

[Durham]

The King is no direct descendant, from father or mother, to Saxon Kings. With some zig-zagging and hop-hopping descendance can be traced. The late Duke of Edinburgh was a direct descendant of the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburgs and the Battenbergs. The late Queen was a direct descendant of the Sachsen-Coburgs and the Bowes-Lyons.

No zig zaging needed.


The wife of Henry I of England was Matilda of Scotland. Her mother Margaret was a princess of the House of Wessex. Margaret’s grandfather Edmund was King of the English between 990 & 1016.

Edmund was a descendent in the fifth generation from Alfred The Great, King of the West Saxons (Wessex) & then King of the Anglo-Saxons. So The King is most definitely a direct descendent of those whose mortal remains are contained in the Winchester chests.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The King is no direct descendant, from father or mother, to Saxon Kings. With some zig-zagging and hop-hopping descendance can be traced. The late Duke of Edinburgh was a direct descendant of the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburgs and the Battenbergs. The late Queen was a direct descendant of the Sachsen-Coburgs and the Bowes-Lyons.

Alfred The Great's daughter Ælfthryth married Baldwin II, Count of Flanders and Charles III is a direct descendant of that marriage via:

Ælfthryth and Baldwin II
Arnulf I, Count of Flanders
Baldwin III, Count of Flanders
Arnulf II, Count of Flanders
Baldwin IV, Count of Flanders
Baldwin V, Count of Flanders
Matilda Queen of England (married William the Conqueror or William I)
Henry I
Matilda
Henry II
John
Henry III
Edward I
Edward II
Edward III
John of Gaunt
John Beaufort 1st Earl of Somerset
John Beaufort Duke of Somerset
Lady Margaret Beaufort
Henry VII
Margaret Queen of Scots
James V
Mary Queen of Scots
James VI and I
Elizabeth Queen of Bohemia
Electress Sophia of Hanover
George I
George II
Frederick Prince of Wales
George III
Edward Duke of Kent
Victoria
Edward VII
George V
George VI
Elizabeth II
Charles III

That means that Charles 37th great grandfather is Alfred the Great.

I am sure there are other lines of descent which may be shorter or longer but Charles is a direct descendant from the Anglo-Saxon Kings down to Alfred the Great.

I have found an even closer line - direct descendant from Edmund Ironside the second last King of the House of Wessex via his granddaughter St Margaret. Her father was Edward the Exile who had he lived would have been the heir to Edward The Confessor. St Margaret's daughter Edith married Henry I and from their daughter Matilda as shown above Charles does descend.

Edmund Ironside
Edward the Exile
St Margaret, Queen of Scots
Matilda - Queen of England as wife of Henry I (direct descent is listed above)

This makes Charles a 32 great-grandchild of the second last King of England from the House of Wessex another Anglo-Saxon King.

 

[Durham]

There will be various lines of descent but what's key about Henry i's marriage was that Matilda was a link to the old Saxon kings. She was a great great niece of the last Anglo Saxon (House of Wessex) king, Edward the Confessor. It was a political match linking the Norman & Wessex lines.

And it is of course on King or St Edward's Chair (ie the Confessor) that The King will be crowned.

It's a perfect example of how the roots of monarchy run very deep on this island. At least back to the semi mythical Cerdic of Wessex in the 6th century AD. To the very beginnings of we would understand as Angleland or as it became England.

 

[Katariina]

Some people seem to use direct decendant to mean direct male-line descendant, and that's rather outdated thinking. However there are cases where the female in line was considered the heir, such as with Elizabeth II, and cases where the line is more passing through the woman as such with Lady Margaret Beaufort. Henry VII didn't use just his line as justification for the throne. So that might be where some opinions differ if its still the same direct line.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Some people seem to use direct decendant to mean direct male-line descendant, and that's rather outdated thinking. However there are cases where the female in line was considered the heir, such as with Elizabeth II, and cases where the line is more passing through the woman as such with Lady Margaret Beaufort. Henry VII didn't use just his line as justification for the throne. So that might be where some opinions differ if its still the same direct line.

George I was also selected as Queen Anne's successor via the rights of his late mother Sophia, Electress of Hanover who was also the daughter of a Stuart Princess.

 

[Mbruno]

According to the latest YouGov poll, the Royal Family's popularity has bounced back (slightly) after the low point following the release of Spare.

Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Edward, Harry and Meghan had an increase in their favorability ratings as did also the "institution of the monarchy". Overall it was a good poll for the royals.

 

[TLLK]

According to the latest YouGov poll, the Royal Family's popularity has bounced back (slightly) after the low point following the release of Spare.

Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Edward, Harry and Meghan had an increase in their favorability ratings as did also the "institution of the monarchy". Overall it was a good poll for the royals.

Thank you for sharing Mbruno. I do wonder why Sophie isn't mentioned though. Was she not included in the polling? Also, I don't understand why You Gov UK includes the Sussexes and Duke of York in their polls as none are performing royal duties.

 

[Denville]

I dont take them all that seriously, even Yougov is not really all that good since it does not compare like with like

 

[An Ard Ri]

This Poll is good news for
The Prince of Wales
The Princess of Wales
The Princess Royal

No real surprises for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex but rather odd that Sophie was not polled?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

According to the latest YouGov poll, the Royal Family's popularity has bounced back (slightly) after the low point following the release of Spare.

Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Edward, Harry and Meghan had an increase in their favorability ratings as did also the "institution of the monarchy". Overall it was a good poll for the royals.

The whim of the day. Says nothing about the whim of next week, next month or even next year...

 

[Claire]

I know most people dont like the Daily express - but since many on this forum have discuss this to death - seems they did a brain trust for it.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1758740/royal-family-abolish-monarchy-king-charles

Charles wanted a smaller monarchy (once again - didnt voice it or make an offiical statement) how it seems he is reaping the consequences. Of course you cannot have it both ways - visability vs cost saving. Thematic exploration vs volume?

 

[Alison H]

There's nothing wrong with the Express.

This is actually a report by the "think tank" Civitas, not by the Express itself, and it does make a valid point about the drop in the number of engagements carried out - although I'm not sure whether or not they're including Zoom meetings.

The trend generally is towards "slimmed down" monarchies, as we've seen in Denmark and Sweden, but the other side of that is fewer engagements being carried out and therefore the Royal Family being less visible. It's a delicate balance. Of course, when Charles started talking about a "slimmed down" monarchy, he was expecting Harry and Meghan to be working royals. Now that they're not, I do think that the monarchy's getting a bit too slimmed down. The Kents have retired, the Gloucesters will probably do so soon, and Charles, Camilla and Anne are all in their 70s and everyone's got to slow down some time.

I don't know what the answer is, though. It's all very well Civitas suggesting that Beatrice, Eugenie and Zara carry out royal engagements, but a) the King's made it clear that he wants a "slimmed down" monarchy and b) they all have their own lives and their own work and I doubt that they'd want to become working royals.

 

[Denville]

THere is no real answer. I think Charles is right to keep numbers down, it saves money and it means that if a family member gets into trouble, if he's not a working royal he does not mess up the reputation of the monarchy quite so badly.
but it does mean that less royals will mean less public appearances. Just got to be faced that they wont be seen at the equivlalent of the Village fete every year

 

[Hallo girl]

There's nothing wrong with the Express.

This is actually a report by the "think tank" Civitas, not by the Express itself, and it does make a valid point about the drop in the number of engagements carried out - although I'm not sure whether or not they're including Zoom meetings.

The trend generally is towards "slimmed down" monarchies, as we've seen in Denmark and Sweden, but the other side of that is fewer engagements being carried out and therefore the Royal Family being less visible. It's a delicate balance. Of course, when Charles started talking about a "slimmed down" monarchy, he was expecting Harry and Meghan to be working royals. Now that they're not, I do think that the monarchy's getting a bit too slimmed down. The Kents have retired, the Gloucesters will probably do so soon, and Charles, Camilla and Anne are all in their 70s and everyone's got to slow down some time.

I don't know what the answer is, though. It's all very well Civitas suggesting that Beatrice, Eugenie and Zara carry out royal engagements, but a) the King's made it clear that he wants a "slimmed down" monarchy and b) they all have their own lives and their own work and I doubt that they'd want to become working royals.

I cannot see Zara doing royal duties, simply as it would clash with her career, I could see Beatrice becoming involved. I am not so sure about Eugenie although she does to charity work at the moment.

It will be interesting to see how this all develops, the King has had a great deal on his plate since last September, changes have occurred, some of them unexpected. I think we need to give him time to settle in, deal with things in his own manner . he cannot possibly deal with everything at once.

 

[Princess B]

I think the York princesses will be like the Michaels of Kent, occasionally called to do official duties but will largely live independent lives

 

[TLLK]

I cannot see Zara doing royal duties, simply as it would clash with her career, I could see Beatrice becoming involved. I am not so sure about Eugenie although she does to charity work at the moment.

It will be interesting to see how this all develops, the King has had a great deal on his plate since last September, changes have occurred, some of them unexpected. I think we need to give him time to settle in, deal with things in his own manner . he cannot possibly deal with everything at once.

I agree. The King would have known for years now that his mother's cousins would eventually retire. And while initially he would have expected his second son and daughter-in-law to be working royals, that plan has now changed.



Ultimately I believe it will simply come down to if the British public be more in favor of a smaller BRF if it means saving money or do they want to see an increase so the family is more visible?

 

[Denville]

People dont want to see royals at loads of events. As long as they do some charity work, behave reasonably well in public, and keep out of financial and other troubles, the public would certainly prefer less appearances.
IMO its non Brits who want to see them doing a lot of public appearances, just as they tend to be the ones who want to see tiaras and glitter and a big ceremony for the coronation. The British public take a bit of interest in the RF, they enjoy a bit of scandal, and they like to see the occasional big event. but the days of Royals opening clinics in every other provincial city are over. Charles does not want to use his other relatives for this as this will commit him to helping them out financially, perhaps for life.. He already will have to help out the elderly cousins, who are now getting towards the end of thier working days and he does not want to have Bea and Eugenie or others in need of financial assistance...
He would prefer to keep his money for the major working royals and for his charities and some for himself.

 

[Claire]

I have read that the coronation is the final enagement for the Kents and Gloucesters - is there any truth to this?

I have many concerns about the route the King and the POW is taking. And it stems from who acutally moulds the monarchy and who should? The monarchy serves at the pleasure of the people (and that would be the British people) not the masses of Twitter and the whims of the Internet. Charles might want a smaller greener cheaper monarchy that fits in with his woke agenda and press office. You cannot be everything to everybody - you cannot be a good king by ruling by public opinion. Sometimes the unfavourable decision in time turns to be the correct one. Noone has the honour of forsight - but quick decisions based on the prevaling bandwagan is not a way to steer a monarchy. Which is why monarchy is a low and steady ship and stuck with traditions.
Projects like the Earth Shot Awards and the Childhood Development, which is where the POW team want to concentrate - are they really the foundations of monarchy? Yes - royals have always been patrons for sciences and the arts. But the need of William to do these types of projects concerns me. There always seems to have been a distain from William and Harry about the small, cut ribbon, shake hands open schools engagements. They want the flashy award ceremonies and large scale policy changing events. Once again - slow changes make endering lasting impact, simple upheavals and noise making us usually hit with concerns and negativity. But is this what the people (yes - their subjects that they are suppose to serve) want? I can understand the need to want to use your position to actually make a difference - however at what point does it became about your ego?

 

[Mbruno]

I know most people dont like the Daily express - but since many on this forum have discuss this to death - seems they did a brain trust for it.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1758740/royal-family-abolish-monarchy-king-charles

Charles wanted a smaller monarchy (once again - didnt voice it or make an offiical statement) how it seems he is reaping the consequences. Of course you cannot have it both ways - visability vs cost saving. Thematic exploration vs volume?

I had actually seen the Express report before I saw your post here and I think the fears are overrated.

As other posters have said, other monarchies like Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and even a bigger country (by European standards) like Spain have shown that they can manage perfecly well with a small number of working royals. And I am pretty sure that most people in Britain would rather see the British royals cutting down on their number of engagements than have lots of members of the King's extended family living off the Sovereign's Grant or occupying royal residences.

Ideally I think modern European monarchies should adjust to having only the King and Queen Consort, and the Heir and the Heir's spouse, as the core working royals. Other adult children of the King (other than the Heir) may have a supporting role as part-time working royals until the Heir's heir is old enough to become a working royal himself or herself. The core Royal Family on the other hand in terms of HRH titles (not working status) should be the King and Queen Consort, a Queen Dowager or former monarch upon abdication and spouse when applicable, the King's children (including the Heir), and the Heir's children when applicable. I now think that only the King's spouse and the Heir's spouse should be titled among the royal consorts, which may be a bit drastic, but has been the Spanish model since 1987.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Visibility is no argument. I have never seen so many articles, pictures, videos and reports about British and European royals as now, in the 7/7 and 24/24 online world.

That there maybe will be a less frequent royal visit to guide dog training centre in Warwickshire or to an organic sheep milk dairy producer in Shropshire, too bad but let us be honest: is there any interest when the Duke of Edinburgh or the Duke of Gloucester visits these?

If there is any possible interest, then it is about the garderobe and the hairdo of royal ladies, not about the guide dogs or the organic dairy. Even here, at this Royal Forums, I have never encountered any interest in a charity, foundation, plan, company, organization visited by any royal.

And even when the visits are done by "minor" royal ladies as Princess Alexandra, the Duchess of Gloucester (or in foreign countries an Infanta Elena, a Princess Laurentien, a Princess Marie) it barely causes any ripple in mainstream media. And if it does, it is only about their appearance.

Visibility of royals was a key point when newspapers and radio were the main sources of information. But now, with newsfeeds on any mobile phone, this is hardly relevant anymore. Let us be honest. They are visible. Always. Even a Prince Andrew horseriding is "news" these days.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have read that the coronation is the final enagement for the Kents and Gloucesters - is there any truth to this?

If so then no one has told The Duchess of Gloucester who has engagements already listed in the Future Engagements page of the BRF for after the coronation weekend.

For most visits this is published two weeks in advance although The Princess Royal and the Edinburgh's normally post about a month in advance while The Wales don't bother using that source at all.

For the Gloucester's and Kent's two weeks is the norm.

This is also only for visits or other events outside the palaces and not receptions, meals or meetings with people either in a palace or outside. That means that if someone looks at the FE page and sees that xxxx royal has 7 engagements listed (as The Duchess of Gloucester currently has) they will probably end up doing double or even treble that number.

My experience is that for every visit done by one of the Gloucesters or Kents there is normally the same number or even more of the type of events done outside the public eye e.g. currently The Duke of Gloucester has undertaken 36 engagements this year but of those 22 have been inside a palace or building as a meeting or receiving someone. Meanwhile The Princess of Wales has done one engagement fewer (35) but has done 18 of them outside a palace so more visible but doing about the same number of engagements as a 78 year old man.

 

[tommy100]

I can full well imagine the Kents - the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra may "retire" after the coronation. The Duke is 87 and the Princess 86 and both have not been in the best of health lately. I don't think we'll never see them but I think they will feel able to wind down a bit more and just attend events at KP, larger family events where health allows. Princess Alexandra did 57 engagements last year, the Duke 105. I can completely imagine the Duke will reduce his engagements down.

The Duke of Gloucester is only 4 years older than the King - I don't think he'll retire but maybe just do a bit less.

I don't think anyone is going to be pushing them out the door once the coronation is over.

 

[TLLK]

I can full well imagine the Kents - the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra may "retire" after the coronation. The Duke is 87 and the Princess 86 and both have not been in the best of health lately. I don't think we'll never see them but I think they will feel able to wind down a bit more and just attend events at KP, larger family events where health allows. Princess Alexandra did 57 engagements last year, the Duke 105. I can completely imagine the Duke will reduce his engagements down.

The Duke of Gloucester is only 4 years older than the King - I don't think he'll retire but maybe just do a bit less.

I don't think anyone is going to be pushing them out the door once the coronation is over.

I have similar feelings regarding the Kent siblings announcing their retirement. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this has been their plan for some time. The Gloucesters being a bit younger, I could see them choosing to stay on for a little while longer though.

 

[Somebody]

Exactly, the duke of Kent has hinted at him remaining active as long as his cousin the queen (who was 10 years his senior) remained active. Now his first cousin once removed is to be crowned, he can honorably retire. Princess Alexandra still seems to be in good health, so if she'd like to do the occasional engagement, why not? But if she'd want to retire at the same time as her brother that would make perfect sense as well.

I don't see the Gloucesters retire yet. As you point out, they are only 1-4 years older than the king and queen, so they are about the same age - although of course, some people age 'faster' than others in terms of their health. In addition, they don't have a heavy workload, so I expect them to continue more or less in the same numbers they've been doing over the last few years (also because there is nobody to pick up their charities if they would retire; while I assume their work is appreciated by all who are somehow involved) - as long as their health allows (which also applies to the king and queen).

Duke of Gloucester: born on 26 Aug 1944
Duchess of Gloucester: born on 20 June 1946
Queen Consort: born on 17 July 1947
King: born on 14 November 1948

 

[Lilyflo]

I know most people dont like the Daily express - but since many on this forum have discuss this to death - seems they did a brain trust for it.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1758740/royal-family-abolish-monarchy-king-charles

Charles wanted a smaller monarchy (once again - didnt voice it or make an offiical statement) how it seems he is reaping the consequences. Of course you cannot have it both ways - visability vs cost saving. Thematic exploration vs volume?

I dislike Civitas and The Daily Express but of course, they're entitled to their views. I just fundamentally disagree with them on most issues.

For decades, surveys have shown that British people are generally in favour of the monarchy but they don't want to pay for 'all the hangers-on'. Our late Queen was right in saying that she "had to be seen to be believed" but that was about her. Nobody saw the Duke of Kent and thought 'I've seen The Queen'. It's the monarch and senior royals that people associate with the crown, not nieces, uncles and cousins. Charles would be wise to continue going down the path that other royal families have taken. If he starts putting Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie on the payroll, it won't be a popular move IMO.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Ahead of the Coronation Panorama commissioned a new YouGov opinion poll on the Monarchy.
58% Support Monarchy
26% Elected Head of State

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65326467

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Ahead of the Coronation Panorama commissioned a new YouGov opinion poll on the Monarchy.
58% Support Monarchy
26% Elected Head of State

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65326467

That is almost identical with the neighbours in the Netherlands, which indicates the statistics may be considered correctly showing the trend:

56% support for a hereditary monarchy as a form of state
24% support for a republican form of state

 

[An Ard Ri]

That is almost identical with the neighbours in the Netherlands:

56% support for a hereditary monarchy as a form of state
24% support for a republican form of state

Hopefully king Charles can halt the downward spiral.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Hopefully king Charles can halt the downward spiral.

That is a herculanean task.

Note that often the personal approval of members of the royal family or Royal House is higher than the "score" for the instititution. But having a personal popularity is something different than having the opinion that a hereditary monarchy is the best form of state for your country. Then we see that the two statistics can differ quite a lot.

I remember that Crown Princess Victoria once scored approval ratings of over 80% while less than 60% of the same respondents thougt that a hereditary monarchy was the preferred form of state for Sweden.

It is possible that a Prince William has quite high approval ratings as a person (who would not like this easygoing and affable gentleman?) but that is not the same as "Do you think a hereditary monarchy is the best form of state for our country?". That is really another question.