The Monarchy after Elizabeth II

[KittyAtlanta]

I think the months between the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the coronation are doing to be fill of constitutional legal wranglings. I expect that Charles' will not be coronated in any religious fashion and that will serve his 'defender of the faiths' credo. just like his legal team will come up with a way to have Camilla crown Queen without her becoming Queen.
He will also narrow down the family. I expect the first in the firing line will be the Kents, Glouchester, Wessexs and Princess Alexander. It will simply be explained that they are not longer necessary and will be shortly dismissed. It depends on his own family whether he will do the same to Princess Anne and Andrew and his children. If William and Harry is married - they will also not be needed. So the royal family will simply be - the current Wales family with spouses.
I expect the family to be media savvy. Otherwise saying they will live out of the hands of the press. This is not to say that this will be good as I expect the Wales to have more problems then they have already faced in the future.

Andrew and Anne could possibly go on to jobs in the UN. It might work well. Anne could do her Save the Children full time. I expect that Beatrice and Eugenie will became fully American probably marry there and raise their family there. Edward and Sophie could possibly do something similiar and the possiblities are endless for Louise.
I only feel sorry for the elder members of the royal family. They are too old to start something new. Maybe Charles will let them continue doing engagements till their deaths.
I also expect the royal households to be narrow down. I believe that Sandringham and the scotish castle will be giving to back to the Government. Kensington Palace will possibly became the new American embassy.

I expect Charles and maybe William to reign (if you could call it that ) will not last long. Scotland will move away. As will Australia, New Zealand and Canada and after that they will no longer be the figurehead of the Commonwealth. I expect the monarchy to be dissolved within a decade of the Queen's death. The reign of Prince Charles and William will be in final death knell.

Sounds like some wishful thinking to me.

 

[grevinnan]

To all you that are familiar with the Brittish rules regarding titles - will not Camilla become Queen when Charles ascends the throne whether she choose to use the title or not?

 

[fergalicious]

Ohhhh, I can't imagine british monarchy without Elizabeth. It will be hard but the day will come and then Charles will be a cute king.

 

[nascarlucy]

I would hope that by the time William is crowned King that his firstborn whether the child be male or female will be heir to the throne.

I would also think the "Defender of the Faith" should be done away.

No monarchy in recent times has been "Defender of the faith". The Queen is not a religious leader nor does she make policy or edicts in regard to Anglican faith. IMO this would be the definition of "Defender of the faith."

 

[rob2008]

It is a great comfort to know that HM is a devout Christian lady. The title Fid Def is most apt. Charles is also devout - though in a somewhat different way. The Windsors need to retain their Protestant faith and the title bestowed by Leo X or they are a godless monarchy. The dynasty without a firm Protestant faith would be vulnerable to all manner of erratic, destabilising influences.

 

[nascarlucy]

I think that the British Royal family is the only monarchy that ever had such a title. I don't recall any other royal household having the title or similiar title of "Defender of the Faith". I agree with you rob2008. The Queen is a devout Christian lady. No doubt about that.

I don't see the Windsors leaving their faith anytime soon. I'm assuming that Kate is Anglican in religion so there's no issue there as far as religion goes if they marry.

 

[Iluvbertie]

To all you that are familiar with the Brittish rules regarding titles - will not Camilla become Queen when Charles ascends the throne whether she choose to use the title or not?

In the week before the wedding that question was asked in Parliament, along with whether or not she would also become Princess of Wales on her wedding day and the answer was 'yes' to both questions.

She is HRH The Princess of Wales and she will instantly become HM Queen Camilla at Charles' accession. What will be needed is legislation to create a new title for her - Duke of Cornwall is one of Charles' titles so Camilla is simply using a different title of Charles' (and the one that he has held for the longest time having been Duke of Cornwall since 1952 whereas he didn't become Prince of Wales until 1958).

 

[Iluvbertie]

It is a great comfort to know that HM is a devout Christian lady. The title Fid Def is most apt. Charles is also devout - though in a somewhat different way. The Windsors need to retain their Protestant faith and the title bestowed by Leo X or they are a godless monarchy. The dynasty without a firm Protestant faith would be vulnerable to all manner of erratic, destabilising influences.

Leo X might have given Henry VIII that title but the Pope at the time of the break with Rome removed it. That was Pope Paul III.

The current version of the title dates from 1544 when the Parliament of England regranted the title to the king and all monarchs since then, except Mary I as the title now relates to defender the protestant faith against Roman Catholicism more than anything.

I agree though that they need to retain that title and their distinctly Protestant viewpoint but would like to see them follow the Scandinavians and insist on Anglicans only rather than allow anyone except Roman Catholics.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think that the British Royal family is the only monarchy that ever had such a title. I don't recall any other royal household having the title or similiar title of "Defender of the Faith". I agree with you rob2008. The Queen is a devout Christian lady. No doubt about that.

I don't see the Windsors leaving their faith anytime soon. I'm assuming that Kate is Anglican in religion so there's no issue there as far as religion goes if they marry.

King Henry I of Hait also used that title.

 

[pgm1952]

I have heard it is in bad taste to talk about the next reign when the current one is still going on (a long time but still the protocol must be observed). Not sure how accurate that is but I would rather not think about life without that great lady at the healm of the British monarchy.

I almost want to say it will be like when Queen Victoria died, but am also tempted to say it will be like when Franz Josef of Austria- Hungary died: without that great old symbol of unity the whole system will dissolve in a few months. On the whole would rather not think about it.

 

[Catherine J]

I think the Monarchy will move along, like it always does, and that Queen Elizabeth II will be well remembered by her people. I also think that at a future time some historian pundit will remark that both Queen Elizabeths reigned remarkably well and remarkably similarly over periods of remarkably similar social and political change.

It is always so - when a good president leaves a company, when the m/patriarch of a family dies, when a political leader retires ... people wonder if the things they held up will stay up. I say this: part of their greatness remains behind as glue.

 

[olebabs]

I am sure there were comprehensions when HM had to take over from her father; can a young woman handle it and so on. But I think the monarchy will be just fine, when Charles takes over. He can never be his mother though, and some people might expect him to do things the way she did. I just hope he doesn't die before he has a chance to do the job he has waited for his whole life

 

[Kasumi]

I hope that Canada becomes a free and sovereign dominion of its own. The best time for this would probably be when the Queen and Prince Charles die of natural causes.
In the meantime, I feel that as one of the richest families in the world, they should pay for their royal visits out of their own pockets; airfare (Canadian Forces), hotel, food, security and the extra police costs, especially in a recession.
People who claim to be true supporters of the royal family can send cash, cheque or money order to Buckingham Palace on top of mandatory taxes.

Source

I wonder how popular this opinion is

 

[Iluvbertie]

Source

I wonder how popular this opinion is

Sounds like a rude person actually - you don't invite someone to your home and then say to them - pay for the cost of your visit to my place please - which is what this person is advocating.

 

[NGalitzine]

Sounds like a rude person actually - you don't invite someone to your home and then say to them - pay for the cost of your visit to my place please - which is what this person is advocating.

True, the royals official visists to Canada are always at the invitation of the government. The same can be said about state visits to Canada by other foreign leaders. The writer also fails to acknowledge that Canada is a fully independent nation.
Republicans always make the arguement that monarchy is expensive but fail to acknowledge that republics don't come cheap either. Presidents, and their family, still require official residences, security, the expense of entertaining and travel etc, and then their are the pensions for former presidents. Even in constitutional monarchies people and the press never seem to take a close look at the costs of maintaining the official residences of the PM and other officials who have official residences at their disposal. In Canada the PM, Leader of the Opposition and Speaker of the House of Commons all have official residences. In the UK the list would include several cabinet ministers who have rather grand residences at their disposal, not only in London but country estates as well.

 

[Tiberivs]

True, the royals official visists to Canada are always at the invitation of the government. The same can be said about state visits to Canada by other foreign leaders. The writer also fails to acknowledge that Canada is a fully independent nation.
Republicans always make the arguement that monarchy is expensive but fail to acknowledge that republics don't come cheap either. Presidents, and their family, still require official residences, security, the expense of entertaining and travel etc, and then their are the pensions for former presidents. Even in constitutional monarchies people and the press never seem to take a close look at the costs of maintaining the official residences of the PM and other officials who have official residences at their disposal. In Canada the PM, Leader of the Opposition and Speaker of the House of Commons all have official residences. In the UK the list would include several cabinet ministers who have rather grand residences at their disposal, not only in London but country estates as well.

But if Elizabeth II taking seriously her role as Queen of Canada then she isn't a visiting foreign dignitary but the Canadian sovereign and head of state.

 

[andrew]

.

But if Elizabeth II taking seriously her role as Queen of Canada then she isn't a visiting foreign dignitary but the Canadian sovereign and head of state.

As Queen Elizabeth is head of Canada, do you expect the British to pay for another country's head of state expenses when she is in her own country(that is Canada )??

With this reasoning the Canadians should pay for HM's visits to, let's say Leeds or Liverpool or anywhere in Britain!

 

[NGalitzine]

But if Elizabeth II taking seriously her role as Queen of Canada then she isn't a visiting foreign dignitary but the Canadian sovereign and head of state.

And as the Canadian head of state her expenses in that role are paid for by Canadians.
What I was pointing out was that any foreign dignitary visiting Canada at the invitation of the Canadian government would have their visit paid for bt the Canadian government. People who tend to complain about the costs of royals visits never seem to raise the same complaints about the cost of a visit by the President of the US, the President of Israel, the President of Brazil or the Emperor of Japan. Do they imagine that those visits are paid for by the visitors?

 

[DukeOfAster]

To all you that are familiar with the Brittish rules regarding titles - will not Camilla become Queen when Charles ascends the throne whether she choose to use the title or not?

Just like right she is the Princess of Wales dispite the fact she uses the Duchess of Cornwall. She will be Queen one day whether some like it or not.

 

[DukeOfAster]

I think the months between the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the coronation are doing to be fill of constitutional legal wranglings. I expect that Charles' will not be coronated in any religious fashion and that will serve his 'defender of the faiths' credo. just like his legal team will come up with a way to have Camilla crown Queen without her becoming Queen.
He will also narrow down the family. I expect the first in the firing line will be the Kents, Glouchester, Wessexs and Princess Alexander. It will simply be explained that they are not longer necessary and will be shortly dismissed. It depends on his own family whether he will do the same to Princess Anne and Andrew and his children. If William and Harry is married - they will also not be needed. So the royal family will simply be - the current Wales family with spouses.
I expect the family to be media savvy. Otherwise saying they will live out of the hands of the press. This is not to say that this will be good as I expect the Wales to have more problems then they have already faced in the future.

Andrew and Anne could possibly go on to jobs in the UN. It might work well. Anne could do her Save the Children full time. I expect that Beatrice and Eugenie will became fully American probably marry there and raise their family there. Edward and Sophie could possibly do something similiar and the possiblities are endless for Louise.
I only feel sorry for the elder members of the royal family. They are too old to start something new. Maybe Charles will let them continue doing engagements till their deaths.
I also expect the royal households to be narrow down. I believe that Sandringham and the scotish castle will be giving to back to the Government. Kensington Palace will possibly became the new American embassy.

I expect Charles and maybe William to reign (if you could call it that ) will not last long. Scotland will move away. As will Australia, New Zealand and Canada and after that they will no longer be the figurehead of the Commonwealth. I expect the monarchy to be dissolved within a decade of the Queen's death. The reign of Prince Charles and William will be in final death knell.

Wow this is unbelievable. To each their own.?

 

[fearghas]

I would say its a mix of disappointment and the fact that he is completely boring. Just my opinion of course!

I find Charles completely the opposite of boring

 

[Madame Royale]

Wow this is unbelievable. To each their own.?

It was perhaps one of the weirdest posts I've ever read on these forums.

Kensington Palace the New American Embassy? Now that is what I call wishfull thinking!

 

[Iluvbertie]

It was perhaps one of the weirdest posts I've ever read on these forums.

Kensington Palace the New American Embassy? Now that is what I call wishfull thinking!

That was a rumour some years ago actually but The Queen rejected the idea then. Queen rejects US request to use Kensington Palace as embassy - Telegraph

Who knows what a future monarch might do though?

 

[Madame Royale]

Well, the Queen certainly had/has some sense. And do observe that the request came from American officials, and not from within Britain. Again, wishful thinking it would have appeared.

And surely her son shall share her resolve and view the palace as a purely English centrepoint of historic national significance.

 

[DukeOfAster]

Very strange indeed. Could not believe it when I read it so i reread it. Everyone has a idea how things should go I guess.

 

[Osipi]

Well, the Queen certainly had/has some sense. And do observe that the request came from American officials, and not from within Britain. Again, wishful thinking it would have appeared.

And surely her son shall share her resolve and view the palace as a purely English centrepoint of historic national significance.

As much as Charles is a traditionalist and with his love of architecture, there's not a snowball's chance in my oven that he'd ever think of relinquishing Kensington Palace to any foreign nation. William has quite a history of his life there and will have in years to come also so I can't see him giving it up either. IF for some reason it was relinquished as a residence and offices of the Monarch and family, it most likely would become a British national historic landmark.

I would see the Tower of London becoming a McDonald's first.

 

[lucien]

It was perhaps one of the weirdest posts I've ever read on these forums.

Kensington Palace the New American Embassy? Now that is what I call wishfull thinking!

Rediculous,as if they can pull everything...they think they can,but really...
to have a third world country infest that glorious Palace is just hilarious!!

The sheer arrogance on the thought alone....

But to get back to the topic...There will still be a Monarchy after Aunt Lillibeth and after Charles and after William...No worries there at all.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Rediculous,as if they can pull everything...they think they can,but really...
to have a third world country infest that glorious Palace is just hilarious!!

The sheer arrogance on the thought alone....

But to get back to the topic...There will still be a Monarchy after Aunt Lillibeth and after Charles and after William...No worries there at all.

Since when did the USA become a third world country?
And as for the existence of the monarchy after Elizabeth, that's debatable. There are 'worries'. If the monarchy wants to survive, they might want to do some adapting.

 

[scooter]

I think a lot depends on the timing of her death, and the popularity of the heir, who ever that might be at the time of her death. For example, should William out live Charles, and is still enjoying the white hot popularity that he and Catherine have now, then that's one scenario. If it's 75 year old Charles with a 20% popularity rating, that's another.

 

[Mirabel]

Rediculous,as if they can pull everything...they think they can,but really...
to have a third world country infest that glorious Palace is just hilarious!!

The sheer arrogance on the thought alone....

But to get back to the topic...There will still be a Monarchy after Aunt Lillibeth and after Charles and after William...No worries there at all.

Perhaps that idea (KP as the embassy) was in the nature of a joke?
Or possibly there were rumors of the RF selling it, so someone decided to chance it? I don't see any arrogance about it!

As for the future of the monarchy, I see it enduring for practical reasons; does anyone truly want the Head of State to be a politician in a business suit?