The House of Windsor

This is a discussion about the British Royal Family, their worth, their place in Britain's constitution, their behaviour and to what degree they remain relevant.

Some websites with information about the Royals:

The Unofficial British Royal Family Pages

Monarchies of Britain on Britannia

Royal Family Tree Since Victoria

Official Royal Monarchy Website

Personally, I've developed more of a tolerance for the monarchy recently. I believe it is a valuable and necessary part of the British constitution, and has an important role in creating stability and continuity in British politics.

The behaviour of the Royals is something else. At times, reports of ordering servants around (and this is especially sadly true of HRH Prince William, who, as the future King, shouldn't be acting like that, even if he is no where near as bad as some of his fellow Royals), and acting like Royals you'd be more likely to find in Victoria's time than ours, irritates me a lot. But this is generally offset by their usual, 'commoner' behaviour - i.e., Harry's drinking/drugs, William's poor student life, and so on.

What do other people think of the Royals and their position in the 21st century? Are they still a valuable part of the British constitution, or are they instead an unfair, class-ridden relic that needs to be consigned to history?

- Scarlet.

 

I'd have them all shot. Well, with the possible exception of Andrew for his miliary service, and Anne for her selfless dedication to charity work. They did a lot of solid work for Britain, which should be applauded.

The others on the other hand are a total waste of space - they are so far up their own derrier's that they have absolutely no idea what real life is like.

Tourism ? bah, how many people visit london solely to see the Queen ?

Public execution might be the way to go.

Oh, I'd keep that Philip guy though - give him his own day time TV show, he's a hoot!

 

I believe that when the Queen was crowned she took her oath to be monarch very very seriously. The rest of the royals however, are no more than spoiled brats who have been brought up to believe that they are inherently superior to the commoners.

If Camilla and Charles ever get married and he ends up on the throne I'd vote to get Canada out of the commonwealth. I would hope that William ends up on the throne rather than Charle and that he has something of his mother's charitable streak.

 

Charles has been the immediate heir to the throne since age 3. I seriously doubt he'll abdicate in favour of William.

Having said that, I also doubt that Camilla and Charles will marry. I personally see Charles on the throne for a while after the Queen's death, but a fairly prompt pass (probably through death) to William.

- Scarlet.

 

In this case, I'd be a republican if I were british. Or part of the commonwealth.

 

I'm sorry, Red-Seven, could you clarify that last remark re: the Commonwealth? Are you suggesting you'd immigrate to a Commonwealth state, like Australia (or a lesser one, like, say, New Zealand or Canada )?

E_S

 

No, I'm saying that if I were and Aussie or Kiwi, instead of 'if I were a pommie git', that I'd also support republican ideals. I'm not a fan of the monarchy, whether their role is real or imagined.

As an American, though, I'm not sure if it is my business.

 

Well, I have no problem pointing my nose into America's business, and I'd have no problem criticising the institution of presidency if I thought it deserved it.

I think the problem a lot of people have with monarchy is more ideological/conceptual than actually real. The Monarchy, as a hereditary feudal relic, reminds a lot of people of the time when the ruling classes gained their power through birthright, rather than merit. But I don't believe it symbolises that any more; rather, it's just like a weak Presidency - another part of the constitution (Commons (where the power is), the Lords (where there is some power), and the Monarch (where there is little or no power)) that acts as a check/balance on the power of the Commons. For example, the Queen has the power to throw out Acts of Parliament, even though she has not exercised that power in 200 years and probably never will again; she can also delay legislation, or create/dismiss unfair governments - but she would never do so without the near-100% backing of the British people. So, in a way, she's more accountable than a President - her entire instutiton would probably be abolished if she triggered a constitutional crisis (i.e., by defying the Commons), without the entire support of the public. The only difference between her and a President, really, is the fact she gains her position from birth, not election.

I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. Let me explain why - as a check and a balance, and not a wielder of power, she could easily be an appointee of the Commons or the Lords - but, as she's seperate to both, there can't be any cronyism. A lot of powerful political posts (even several in the US - I'm thinking Supreme Court Judges and the like), are appointed, not elected, and are totally unaccountable to the population. The Queen is - she would definitely not last long if public opinion turned against her; neither would her Monarchy.

I think the Queen and the Monarchy also symbolise something to the English people: continuity and unity. Even though our popular culture nowadays is almost viciously anti-hereditary, the vast majority of people still support the monarchy, and do not want a Republic. I mean, this Queen can trace her lineage back to William the Conqueror, and she has never given the impression that she'd ever misuse her limited powers - besides, she's a source of pride. She brings in an immense amount of tourists, and there's a good reason to be proud of belonging to a country that has one of the last few remaining ancient monarchies.

- Scarlet.

 

HM The Queen can actually trace her linage from King Egbert (recognised as the first true king of all England).

I am a supporter of the Monarchy. I think on the whole the status quo works. I think the Queen has acted with remarkable honour and duty for 50 years showing total dedication in her role as Sovereign and Head of the Commonwealth. OK, there has been times where she has misjudged the public mood but compare these mistakes to a four/five year term in office of an elected politician and these mistakes are few and far between.

I think that with the passing of HM The Queen Mother you will see the Queen passing on more duties to her heir - HRH The Prince of Wales. This can only be a good thing as it prepares our future king for his role. Something that may be important if the Queen lives as long as her mother.

For all his faults Charlse isn't actually as bad as the popular media and some people like to make out. He has championed some very good causes. It was he who set up the Prince's Trust, spoken out against the advancement of technology without considering the effect on the environment and culture, spoken out against inner city issues and has risked the fury of republicans by challenging ministerial policy when not many people were doing so. These are good things IMO. Charlse is misunderstood - he is a deeply spiritual man who insists at his coronation he will be proclaimed "Defender of Faith" rather than "Defender of THE faith". I feel he will make a fine king when his time comes.

He will not step a side for William. If you support the hereditory principle then you must support Charlse over William.

One good thing that the Prince of Wales will do when he becomes king is reduce the number of "extended members" of the royal family. When he is king it will be him, his sons, his consort (who not be crowned or annointed Queen Consort) and possible a couple of the more harder working members such as the Princess Royal. It will be hard for the Queen to do this as she has made promises to her family and is loyal to said promises.

As for the Monarchy as an institution. I think it works. There are some powers still in the hand of the Monarch but these are very limited and she would not use them unless she as forced and had the vast support of the British people. If you get passed the "class" argument then you will see her as "above class" and above politics. Something which is very important for a Head of State.

Also remember that whether we like it or not the mahority of the British people are drawn to the institution that is Monarchy (maybe not the present royal family though). Just look at where people flock to in times of national importance - Buckingham Palace.

We have two choices of a replacement. 1) A politicla head of state a la in the mould of El Presedente Tonio Blairo based on the American model or 2) The Irish model - not very internationally recognisable.

I have plenty more opinions and arguments in support but I will wait for some republicans to give their views first

 

Red-Seven you're an American? I thought you were an Aussie?

Must've been thinking of someone else.

TSB , you're right about the monarchy being a weak presidency.
It is perhaps similiar to the German President, who merely ratifies treaties(The queen does not though correct?), conducts ceremonial roles, and represents German interests and traditions.

But, if I were to live in Britain, I would be in favor of abolishing it, or turning it into a non-hereditary executive office with limited powers.

You folks do not want a presidential system like France or the U.S. Our Executive has too much power as it is.

How about leaving it, but having it as a self-reliant entity? It would raise its own funds through user fees or such? That way, those who oppose it would not be financially accountable?

Just a thought.

 

Thanks for finally giving us our stone back you theiving english gits.

 

The Queen already more than supports her cost. She brings in about 10 million more a year than she costs to keep.

And what stone?

 

Probably a scottish thing.



"Our Executive has too much power as it is."

pssssttt...the British Executive has more unchecked power than the American one, believe it or not. IMO.

 

Philosopher's. The Philosopher's stone.

So, the Queen has a surplus?

If so, then turn around and use it on the maintenance and upkeep of the palaces rather than using her purses allocated to her.

I have a question: All this money the crown brings in, must it be returned to the government's coffers?


"pssssttt...the British Executive has more unchecked power than the American one, believe it or not. IMO.

R7, no I'm not talking about the PM and the ministers, but am referring to creation of a chief executive/presidency from the monarchy.

The president would be a non-partisan and separate from parliament.

It's an Irish thing btw. Blarney....blarney stone.

Just curious, but what's an pollybygawley?

 

Are you talking about the stone that was part of the Scots Monarchy, and then was taken by England, and now it's being fought over?

I say keep the monarchy. I'm a leftist and practically a socialist, but I'm also a big time monarchist. And really, the behavior the current Royals is NOTHING compared to royalty in the past. Hello, the Duke of Windsor was a Nazi sympathizer, Elizabeth's grandfather, George V refused to allow his Russian cousins to come to England, so they were slaughtered instead, etc.

 

yes the stone that all the Scottish kings were crowned on. Stone of Scone?

 

I have a question: All this money the crown brings in, must it be returned to the government's coffers?

All income from the crown estates goes directly to HM treasury. This amounts to a significantly greater amount of money than the Royal Family receive through the civil list.

 

"Stone of Scone?"

Some scones I've had are hard as stones.

 

Yes, the Stone of Destiny, on which we crowned our royal family (before the english had them all executed). They stole our stone and kept it at Westminster until about 10 years ago.

It was held at Scone in Scotland for a long time hence it is referred to as that.

Oh, and its pronounced Scoon, not scone. Its highly offensive to pronounce it scone up there.

 

Well, now that we've established that the Scots have their stone back...

What do people think of the Republican movement? What chances does it realistically have of succeeding in the near future? The Republicans got a decent voice during the Queen's Jubilee, but opinion polls all the way through indicated that the public was still staunchly monarchist.

Here are the results of a recent MORI (quite well respected/reliable pollster) poll (this time last year), based upon a nationally representative sample of UK adults.


Question One: If there was a referendum on the issue, would you favour Britain becoming a republic or remaining a Monarchy?

Republic - 19%
Monarchy - 74%
Would not vote - 3%
Don't know - 4%



Question Two: Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the Queen is doing her job as Monarch?

Satisfied - 82%
Dissatisfied - 12%
Don't know - 6%



Question Three: Assuming that Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles stay together, do you think they should get married or continue their relationship outside marriage?

They should get married - 49%
Relationship outside marriage - 22%
Neither/don't know - 29%



Question Four: If Prince Charles were to marry Camilla Parker-Bowles and he became King, do you think that Camilla should become Queen by his side?

Yes - 30%
No - 62%
Don't know - 8%



Question Five: And which of the following titles do you think would be most appropriate for Camilla to have if she married Prince Charles and he took the throne?

Queen Camilla - 9%
Princess Camilla - 7%
Princess of Wales - 7%
Consort to HRH - 66%
None of these - 7%
Don't know - 5%



Question Six: Looking to the future, do you think that Britain will or will not have a Monarchy in 10 years / 50 years / 100 years time?

Will - 86% 44% 26%
Will not - 9% 33% 46%
Don't know - 5% 23% 28%



I think the results are quite interesting. It obviously indicates a strong feeling of support for the Monarchy and the Queen, and the job she's doing. However, there's also feeling that it wont last.

There's even a majority of support for Charles and the Queen becoming married - but also a majority for her not becoming Queen. I think the general feeling is that Charles should marry and allow the throne to pass to William.

- Scarlet.

 

TSB
"Well, now that we've established that the Scots have their stone back..."

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Your wit slays me sometimes. I can imagine you saying that with this look:

LOL!

Well, with around 1 in 5 people supporting republicanism, I would say change is not too far off(decades, not centuries).
Now, in the American tradition, republicans never had a majority of people's support before, during, or after, the war for Independence.

In fact Alexander Hamilton wanted to seek a compromise with the crown at one time and retain its role, although minimized, in American tradition.

I would say in a few decades if the support for republicanism grows to around a third, you could see reforms. Maybe.

Let's look at some of the proposals for a British Republic:

Senate of Peers: 1/3 appointed and rest by direct election. Non-partisan. This would replace the Lords. Confirms and changes legislation.

Non-partisan President: Non-Careerist. Limited powers. Ceremonial function. Direct election. Presides in Senate. Can delay legislation. Submit legislation passed by Commons and Senate to Court of Review.

A Court of Constitutional Review: Review laws. Strike down those in non-accordance. Uphold laws in accordance. Appointed.

Written Constitution with clearly defined and distinct powers.

More accountable PM and Cabinet.




That is quite alot. I don't know where grassroots republicanism in Britain stands though. That's what matters. Maybe someone else could pick that up.

Is there any party that supports republicanism openly?

 

The Monarchies of Europe fascinate me, from the old Braganca's of Portugal to the extinct Stuarts of Scotland to the tragic Romanov's of Russia. I am also intrigued by the pretenders to the throne's of Germany and France. Europe is tied to the monarchies of the past just as the United States is tied to George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Thedore Roosevelt, you cant just severe Europe from them, for better or for worse they made their countries and the world what they are today, and tomorrow.

I know I will be ridiculed for my belief, but in many ways I would like to see all of Europe restore their monarch's and royal families as figure heads.

 

@ ShaneP, on the stone thing.

I think you'd be making a mistake about British behaviour if you were to assume that any of those proposals above (with a couple of exceptions), would ever become more than semi-popular ideas not followed through. The British electorate aren't fond of swift, definite changes.

Senate of Peers: 1/3 appointed and rest by direct election. Non-partisan. This would replace the Lords. Confirms and changes legislation.

This is actually one thing I think would pass. Though the public like the institution of monarchy, they dislike the extended royal family and the nobility, and would prefer the Lords had less or no power.

Non-partisan President: Non-Careerist. Limited powers. Ceremonial function. Direct election. Presides in Senate. Can delay legislation. Submit legislation passed by Commons and Senate to Court of Review.

No, I don't think so. Most opinion polls show against a President, either because people think it would overly Americanise our political institutions, or that we'd end up with people like Tony Blair as President, at the loss of the more-liked Queen.

A Court of Constitutional Review: Review laws. Strike down those in non-accordance. Uphold laws in accordance. Appointed.

Probably, as most people wouldn't really care.

Written Constitution with clearly defined and distinct powers.

Doubtful. It would again seem too American, and not.. really.. us? Besides, the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, plus all the other 'constitutional' legislation, like the Act of Settlement and the Parliament Acts, are massively important historically, and there's no need to do away with them.

More accountable PM and Cabinet.

Certainly.

That is quite alot. I don't know where grassroots republicanism in Britain stands though.

Pretty much no where. There is no 'republican' party, there is no major public debate on republicanism - in fact, I can't remember the last time I read anything in favour of republicanism, or even discussing the matter.

Is there any party that supports republicanism openly?

No. The governing Labour Party has the most republicans in it (owing to its socialist roots), but it has never (except maybe in '83) been openly republican, and certainly it's been pro-monarchy since '97 (TB regularly sees the Queen, and has apparently a sort of friendship with her). Really, I can't think of any Party that has an MP that supports British republicanism.

- Scarlet.

 

I tell you what, up until recently, I was never mucgh of a supporter of the Monarchy, but just lately I have warmed to the idea, if not the people....

The idea of having a President and First Lady BLAIR fills me with complete horror! This pair already have WAAAYYYY to much power, without the status of President and First Lady being added to them.

The Queen, or the Blairs in Buckingham Palace? NO CONTEST!

 

Here's a link to some of those proposals I posted above:

British Republic

And another:

Republic

G-FETT, you're not understanding their arguments about a presidency.

The PM would NOT become President. The Presidency would be a separate office with very limited powers in the Senate of Peers.

They essentially want a monarchy without the heredity.

Here's another: This is alink to The Guardian about a book on British republicanism:
Bring Home The Revolution