It’s always said by historians that the British monarchy will still be standing for many decades, if not centuries, from now. People think the British people and the British monarchy are inextricably linked, much more so than Europe’s other royal houses and their people. There’s probably some truth to that – I could see other royal houses (like Spain or the Netherlands) falling before the House of Windsor. But! I also think that when Queen Elizabeth II passes, all hell is going to break loose. Prince Charles will never be as popular as his mother, and William’s actions sometimes make him seem like a closet republican. When the Queen dies, I imagine the idea of further limiting the Monarch’s constitutional powers will be even more popular. There will probably be even more people who want to kick the whole lot of them out. Why am I bringing this up? Because Princess Diana’s brother Charles, the Earl Spencer, does not believe that the royal family will last another 100 years. Girl, let’s see if they can even last the quarter-century!
The Royal Family will NOT survive the next century, the late Princess Diana’s brother has explosively claimed. Charles Spencer – the youngest brother of Diana, Princess of Wales – has stated his view that the monarchy will crumble within 100 years.
During an interview on his latest book tour, the author and broadcaster suggested the popularity of second-in-line to the throne Prince William and wife Kate, Duchess of Cambridge means the future of the Royal Family is safe for now. However, the 50-year-old believes Britain could ditch having a monarch in the not-so-distant future.
He said: “William’s popular, so the throne is secure for the next generation,” adding: “Maybe in 100 years things will change.”
Notably, Earl Spencer did not mention Diana’s former husband Prince Charles – the current heir-to-the-throne – in his comments. The peer is currently promoting his book on King Charles I, suggesting the deposed monarch’s fate should serve as a warning for the current House of Windsor.
‘Killers Of The King: The Men Who Dared To Execute Charles I’ details the trial and conviction of the 17th century monarch, who was hanged for high treason following the English Civil War in 1649. During the event in America, he said: “Charles I’s murder brought a reduced monarchy plus the idea you could actually stand against the king.” He added: “We went ten years without a king.”
Reportedly, William and Harry are not very close to their Spencer relations at all. The brothers were thoroughly “Windsorized” following Diana’s death, and the Earl Spencer barely sees his nephews. I think the Earl Spencer is trying to be nice towards William and make the same kind of bitchy aside that Diana would have been pleased with, by suggesting (without even mentioning his name) that Prince Charles is barely suited for the throne. Here’s the thing though – I think Charles will probably end up a decent king. I also believe that Prince Charles has the temperament to be a king, and he honestly cares about the welfare of his people and he wants to provide a modernization to the stale institution. It’s William I worry about. William so clearly doesn’t want any part of any of this. He’s going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Prince of Wales role when his father becomes king.
As for Duchess Kate, there are a few stories I thought you might like. While doing her events on Monday, Kate told some kids that she still doesn’t know if she’s expecting a boy or a girl, but the baby is “moving all the time. I can feel it kicking now.” And People Magazine had a nice write-up about the pair of free-trade earrings Kate wore last week – go here to read. Apparently, Kate picked out the $45 Mirabelle “Lolita” earrings herself at the Felt jewelry shop in London. The earrings were made “in Indonesia by just one family.” I’m including photos of the hoop earrings below. Kate really likes anything with a circular pattern. Circles must remind her of buttons.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
people are used to Lizzy so as long as she lives they will be save. William and Kate are popular right now, they have the baby plus William has the orphan bonus, they could save it for some time.
in the end its not a bad thing,this sick concept of better people by birth needs to go away.
It is an offensive idea – especially in this day of information.. it’s like seriously, blue blood?!
But that would apply to nobility like the Spencers too.
They all think that they have blue blood? (chuckling)
Oh, how I wish…
I find it highly unlikely that William is a closet republican. He just doesn’t want to be the direct heir. The rest of it is just finer than fine by him.
The way he views his entitlement issue is absurd. Poor Willy, I just can’t feel sorry for him – he’s doing exactly what he wants. Kate is willing to go wherever he (and Charles) wish. She seems oblivious to people, even though I believe that she is trying to fit within royal architecture; she still seems clueless about her job, for being an English women.
https://twitter.com/RoyallyKate/status/542305613401702402/photo/1
Charles Spencer’s remarks at Diana’s funeral were scathing (and spot on wow), about the relationship of the royals concerning his sister. I remember thinking…he’s pretty ballsy – I wonder what will happen to him for saying such things. Nothing! He is Diana’s brother!!! Perhaps this was the basis for Windsorizing William.
The BRF will ignore him like they always do. I think Harry is closer to the Spencer side and has spent time with the cousins and the aunts. It is William that doesn’t mix with them.
Wolfpup: I wouldn’t ulogise Charles Spencer where his sister is concerned since he is/was the very definition of hypocrite with that speech.
He conveniently forgot to mention that he’d refused to help out his own pursued sister in the weeks/months before her death.
He wasn’t around to stand for her in life, very hypocritical to stand up for her in death to whitewash his own lack of support.
Nota: Harry remains close to all the Spencers. William isn’t as close. He does seem to be close to his aunt Sarah though.
I agree that Charles Spencer is a hypocrite.
I think his one shining moment was that speech. It was that of a little boy who loved his big sister and wanted the mean people (BRF) to be punished for hurting her. Before and after that, he failed his sister and his nephews big time.
Even a hypocrite can get it right sometimes. Just because somebody is a hypocrite that doesn’t mean they always talk crap …
Yeah, William’s no more a closet republican than Prince George (later George IV) of the Regency era was. He is just so extremely entitled that he doesn’t want any responsibility whatsoever. If he were a closet republican, he’d turn down the perks too, but he’s all too happy to lap those up. There have been plenty of princes exactly like him before, and they were all very happy to swing their sceptres around when they got to sit on the throne, when no one could tell them “no” to anything any longer.
I believe that Charles left his sister, Diana, in the lurch when she needed him the most.
However, his eulogy at Diana’s funeral was so entertaining. He chewed out the royals publically; they just sat and didn’t bat an eye (although they must have been horrified). He did tell Diana’s story, which gives her story additional gravitas.
How old is this guy he didn’t age well. I will have British nationality soon but def. not bothered, not a royalist nor my husband.
He’s 50 but he looks much older.
He’s starting to look just like his father, which is a shame. He was handsome as a young man.
He is 50? Oh my gosh…These Royals/Nobility/People who have peasants waiting on them sure do age fast.
He is on Kate’s aging schedule. I see a big market for botox and Just For Men in the UK.
Welcome aboard, AG-UK! 😀
@ Amelia
The lovely Living in the UK book was an eye opener.. my husband didn’t know the answers and he was born here 🙂
Lucky ladies! I want to live in England someday. It’s been a dream of mine since I was little. My husband and I talk about possibly moving there when my son is older and on his own.
AG – UK welcome!
🙂
Charles hasn’t aged well ,but he still has more hair than William.
There probably won’t be and I don’t see how it could be a bad thing, not that I have a dog in this fight. They should really just let Charles be the last monarch since he’s waited for it his whole life and then free Willy- who will either get exactly what he’s always wanted, or the swift kick in the rear that he needs- depending on one’s perspective about him. I think Charles does have the brains and the genuine concern for people and the environment to make a good leader, but I somehow feel without knowing much of the details that he will use his power to interfere with the political process, and that this will somehow enrage enough people that it will encourage the end of the institution.
“Free Willy” LOL
…it kinda sounds like you want PW to make a p0rn0…
Yes! Free Willy!
I agree, that Charles will be a decent King.
But William will wreck the monarchy. No interests in anything than avoiding work and a wife that shares those interests.
I hope the Queen lives as long as her mother.
Charles is an idiot who tries to bully Parliament into funding “alternative” medicine on the NHS. He will be extremely unpopular as king.
Bullying Parliament into paying for alternative medicine? Do you realize how much cheaper it is to get holistic treatments than to take drugs forever and be in chronic pain forever? How much money is wasted on chemo? How many heart bypasses that are unnecessary?
I support Charles. He has always been open minded and stood up for what he believed in. I remember a long time ago he was complaining about high rise buildings going up in Victoria area, close to Buckingham Palace. He was right. They don’t allow builders to do this in Paris. They take those ugly buildings to the other part of town. It ruined Victoria.
He has the guts to stand up for what is right. Even though it is not popular.
Yeah, I’ve always admired Charles for his stance on organic farming as well. A bit ahead of his time imho.
embertine
Charles is quite smart. Yes those letters aren’t said to be good, but i’d imagine every form of goverment has someone trying to bully them to get their way.
Outisde of that Charles appears to be very well liked and wants to be King. He’s already done so much good after hitting his stride.
Is there more than just the parliament stuff to make him horrible? Please exclude all gossip and stick to what’s known. Gossip related to Charles can go on for too long.
Holistic treatments may well be cheaper, but as they are actually snake oil that has been proven to be ineffective I am not surprised that the Royal Institute, which is a science-based organisation, doesn’t agree with them. I mean, homeopathy, honestly? Do any of the people endorsing it actually know how it is supposed to “work”? The man is a moron.
I feel like everyone thinks that Charles will wreck the monarchy, but he will probably be a halfway decent monarch. He won’t be very popular, though, but he’s been bred for it and actually has respect for the role and will work hard to be a good monarch. I agree that William will probably be it’s downfall – he just doesn’t seem to want it. Or care. But people like him more than Charles, so they will deal with Charles just to get to William. And then they’ll realize William just doesn’t give two sticks about being king.
Charles will be a good King. William not so much.
As far as public mood, i’m with KIKI04. People will tolerate Charles to get to William.
Charles will be a terrible King. This man has such snooty out-of-touch opinions and he already tries to push his views on government officers. He will have his busybody fingers in every pie. William doesnt give a shoot and thats the kind of King we need in this age. A man who has no interest in pushing an agenda.
A monarch needs to give a damn. Charles does. William doesn’t.
Aurora: a head of state who takes no interest in his subjects is pointless and not a good thing.
And a constitutional monarchy doesn’t mean that Charles or HM can’t take an interest in government, give their opinions or even try to influence it.
HM has chosen to be a passive, silent, non controversial monarchy, except where her own family matters are concerned which has led to people making the wrong assumption about her role.
I’m well aware of what a Constitutional Monarchy means. And you should be aware that there is no appetite for a meddling monarch. The Queen is as popular as she is because she shows up once a year and reads a speech in a funny accent about what “Her Government” will do and we all know she didnt really have a hand in any of it. And that it was our elected officials not some blue blood who determines our policies.
You swap that with a monarch who doesnt understand that we just need you to smile for the tourists and there will be trouble, and I am talking about a Tunisian-like revolution. Look for me in the front line.
The only reason we havent moved for full Republic is because it is understood that the monarch will know his place. Charles consistently forgets his place. And as if that wasnt bad enough, he bases many of his opinions on bad science. William will know to wave from balcony once in awhile, show up to a few charity events and host lavish dinner parties to dazzle other visiting Heads of State so that our REAL governors can convince them to make deals favorable to us.
I think a good answer, IF monarchies are to continue, is the model being put forward by King Felipe of Spain. He isn’t an empty puppet, waving stupidly from the balcony while costing hundreds of millions a year. He is there to be both the Shepherd King and watchdog for the people.
Aurora: The Queen is popular for being around decades. She’s that long lived grannie that everybody professes to love rather than for what they did with their life.
And the Queen is a survivor who has managed her role so well that people like you think her ceremonial role is all she does.
If you know what a constitutional monarchy is, then you know she isn’t a powerless figurehead no matter the her public face.
And Charles’s views are based on bad science? Really? I am not saying he is a genius or even super smart, but I think his views have stood the taste of time. He didn’t jump on band wagons, he was ridiculed for decades for his views which have turned out to be right and or accepted now.
Count me in with LAK on the “not so bad science” angle. I also agree with Charles about architecture too. I also agree with Aurora that he’s a bit out of touch.
And just because William’s only agenda appears to not be giving a damn right now, with Kate never wanting to be hungry again in the background, doesn’t mean that his agenda, or lack thereof, won’t change.
“Give me the child until he is seven and I’ll give you the man”.
William has always been a bad-tempered, selfish prat. All of his life he has taken extreme pride in digging in his heels and refusing to do what others expect of him. I’m not sure White’s would give odds on him rising to the occasion.
Charles will be a good King.
I think William will be a awful King
I read once (and yes I know reading a thing once does not stand for fact, but) The royal family gives all proceeds of their land, castles and whatnot to the British govt to the value of $300,000,000 per year and in return the govt gives them a stipend from taxes of $50,000,000 per year from taxes. If what I read wasnt a work of fiction, then their family’s land contribution to the British Govt is reason why this won’t happen. Speaking as a member of the commonwealth though, I can only hope we can ditch them as head of our state!
I don’t think I’d call that a contribution more like retribution. All of their wealth was literally taken from the the people (ancient and dead people albeit) .
They are just upper crust welfare recipients.
It’s really none of my business and Egads tourism but I wouldn’t be surprised if after the Queen dies the monarchy dies too.
There is also the “private fortune” which was also stolen from the masses.
So is ALL wealth stolen then?
North Star
No.
But for some time through history power was abused and riches were taken.
There is also wealth that is aquired through agreed upon terms.
Or is your comment sarcasm? It’s so hard to tell sometimes.
This is one of those lies that’s been so successfully perpetuated that a lot of people believe it to be true.
When the monarchy was set up, back in 1066, a portion of the land was carved out to support the instrument of government. This meant parliament costs , army etc. The Monarch was put in charge of this estate since they were part of the government. The Royal household, considered to be part of government was included in the overall payment.
The monarch was not granted this land as personal property. They couldn’t use it as personal property to increase personal wealth. The same thing was done to create the duchy of Cornwall to maintain the POW. They became wealthy on a personal level by dint of loopholes that allowed them to retain wealth that was tied to the estate eg Charles is considered personally wealthy as a result of his management of the Duchy of Cornwall. He is allowed to keep the profits of the duchy after he has deducted his expenses as POW which increases his personal wealth, but he can not sell the duchy.
However, by George 3, he couldn’t be bothered to manage the estate especially because it was so badly run that it was perpetually in debt and many monarchs, including George 3, had to ask parliament to raise extra taxes to pay for it and or their household.
So he handed the management to parliament in exchange for a salary (nee stipend better known as the civil list) to pay for the royal household. Parliament was happy to accept the management because they wished to separate the royal household cost from the instrument of government cost.
Over time, the estate has had different names when new rules have been drawn up regarding it’s management.
Current name is The Crown Estates after a review in the 60s. More recently, the Civil list was renegotiated and is now called The Sovereign grant and seems a simpler calculation of what to pay as far as the stipend.
Therefore, should we lose the royal family as our heads of State, they would lose more than they gain. The Crown Estates wouldn’t be returned to them since they’ve NEVER, EVER owned them. Ditto the duchies, Cornwall and Lancaster.
Historically English peasants had it better than their European counterparts since the crown estate money meant they were not taxed to same extent and had more agency as a result.
If the English had been taxed to extent of French peasants as an example, we might removed the royals just like the French.
And currently, the revenues from the crown estates are paying for public services as well as NHS, Police, Army, civil service, Judiciary and costs of parliament.
Very informative, LAK!
Thank you LAK.
*applause*
Yes, thank you LAK – how interesting.
In less than a 100 yrs time there will probably be the Qatari royal family ruling. They have already set themselves up in their own glass palace – London’s Shard, which they own.
hahaha so true and have bought up most of SW3 and all those other trendy areas that Russians haven’t taken.
The Shard is great though
I like the changes they’ve made to Harrods.
As a Brit all I can say is I hope it’s a lot quicker than that.
Within 25. Hell, next week works for me.
Seconded! I’ll help them move!
I’ll help them move boxes of jewelry.
I’m with MinnFinn!
We will move all those crates of jewels round the clock! No need to supervise. We’ll be extra careful. Let the royals rest their heads while we lighten their load 😀
I’ll quietly pack up HM’s decades of couture gowns and keep them somewhere “safe”! I can also box up the Faberge menagerie, and all the Faberge items Princess Michael carried off when one of the other relatives passed away.
Thirded! But I aint helping them move. I will stand at the gates of their mansions, arms crossed and smirking as they attempt to lift their own luggage for the first time; silver spoons falling from their pockets. Ha!
P.S. My Dutch friends and family love their royals way more than anyone I know in the UK
Who wouldn’t love Queen (now Princess Beatrix) and her cheese-shaped hats, her late husband Claus, W-A, and the fashion Question Mark that is Maxima? There was true mourning at the death of Prince Friso who, despite some monkey business around concealing his wife’s past, seemed to have the best interest of the Dutch at heart.
Everyone I know loves the dutch royals and I already look forward to Amalia becoming queen. 🙂 I think monarchy is much more stable in the Netherlands than in the UK.
I too think the monarchy in Holland is quite stable. So is the Danish one. The Swedish king is not popular but CP Victoria is adored.
However, I wish to point out that, historically, monarchies have only fallen in the wake of huge, world-altering and often violent events. The French Revolution was a bloody business that profoundly effected the world – and the various restorations never took longterm. The monarchies of Eastern Europe fell either after WWI (the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, etc.) or or after WWII and the advent of the Communist regimes.
These systems of so historically entrenched that a loss of popularity rarely is enough. In the 20th century two monarchies fell – the Greek and the Spanish. The Greek through a military coup and the Spanish because of a bloody civil war that ended in a fascist dictatorship. The Spanish monarchy was only restored because the former king Carlos was sent to be fostered by Franco at a young age and was designated Franco’s successor by the man himself. It is to Carlos’ credit that he wholeheartedly supported the forces of democracy upon his succession. Because the Spanish monarchy is a restored one, and only quite recently, it is much more unstable than its European counterparts, which we saw upon Carlos’ abdication.
I don’t think that the Earl of Spencer’s predictions will come true anytime soon, unless something really drastic happens – constitutional monarchies are still very stable in today’s world, especially because they are constitutional. An absolute ruler like those in the Middle East are in a sense more vulnerable because if they mismanage, exploit and/or suppress their subjects long enough and hard enough revolutions can occur and then they are out, or possibly dead.
The Earl of Spencer’s comment is controversial and attention-grabbing but he does have a book to promote.
I do think that Charles will be a decent king. However, he must be very very careful not to be seen to interfere with government because that could possibly rock his position. Personally, I think that William wants to king as much as he wants to have a root canal – and a reluctant monarch, even a constitutional one, is never a good thing because if he doesn’t want to embrace his future role and act like a unifying national symbol then he will be in trouble. However, I don’t think in enough trouble to risk the monarchy itself. Personally, I have this nagging feeling that he might opt out entirely and leave the kingship to his brother. I don’t really have any proof, it is just a feeling and nothing will happen while QEII lives anyway. I agree that he likes the privileges and perks of his royal position but I seriously doubt that he wouldn’t get a very nice financial deal if he ever stepped down. He would be wealthy and free to do a he wish.
I still do not understand this concept at all. Millions maybe billions are spent to secure celebrity figureheads of a past system that was abandoned because it was archaic and did not serve the country. Please don’t try to explain it to me, because I do not have the capacity to grasp it. I suppose this is where the US got the concept of subsidizing the rich, to keep them rich, because they are worshiped, which makes no sense to me either.
On a shallow note, William resembles this guy: Diana resembled this guy too.
ETA: Mini Sir Winston Churchill, the end.
I’ll give it a go anyway. The French revolution terrified Britain for a generation if not more. And so TPTB went for very gradual democratisation that made small but consecutive steps rather violent upheaval and guillotines everywhere. That’s reason A for the British constitutional monarchy.
Reason B? Established church, which itself was a part of the violent upheavals of our own Civil War the century before. Establishment makes getting rid of a monarchy much more tricky.
Reason C? For the entire period Britain was democratising at home, it was an empire abroad. So domestic prosperity was rising from the mid-18th century onward. When prosperity is rising (however slowly) and your population identifies that as synonymous with the civilising mission of your empire (see the whole MURICA! thing today for evidence), you don’t violently overthrow your figurehead.
*Positions self in corner, with dunce cap, chugs a Comet Sophie.*
(Don’t look at that as a defence of where we’ve ended up, though. I’d get out the bunting for a goodbye to the system).
*brings Kiddo a cookie. Have been in corner with dunce cap on more than once*
In Denmark, there’s a history of various monarchs being pro-active in securing their positions long-term by recognizing potential dangers – sometimes out of self-preservation, genuine concern or simply a non-interest in the business of ruling.
In the 16th and 17th centuries various king worked to minimize the power of the heriditary nobility, with various degrees of success – but they often did that by an alliance with the merchant class and were thus seen as friendly to the people rather than the social and political elite.
In the 18th century, a bit earlier than the French Revolution, King Frederik VI dissolved the serfdom of the Danish peasants, which earned him much goodwill, while also revolutionizing farming and thus increasing the economy.
Denmark got a constitutional monarchy in 1849 when a group of wealthy and influential men petitioned King Frederik VII for it. However, the king’s reasons were hardly benificent or calculated – he really wasn’t that interested in actually governing being content with his archeological hobby, etc.
He was the last king of the House of Oldenburg and his successor Christian IX became king with a shaky position – being from the German-speaking House of Glücksburg and becoming king at the time of Preussian aggression towards Denmark his was initially highly unpopular. Fortunately for him, he had a Danish princess for a wife, who was also intelligent and shrewd. With time they turned the tide and he became rather popular towards the end of his reign – he did that by studiously staying out of political affairs, heavy touring of the country as well as visits to the soldiers near the front, etc.
His grand-son Christian X (the current Queen’s grand-father) became massively unpopular in the 1920s when he tried to fire the government. That is probably the closest Denmark ever came to ditch the monarchy. He regained popularity by being a highly visible monarch during the German Occupation from 1940-45, riding around Copenhagen every single day – and promising the Germans to wear the yellow star if the country’s Jewish citizens shopuld be forced to.
I love all the pageantry and history, but then, I’m not paying for it.
Bingo! Instead we’re paying, but get no pageantry or history 🙁
King Harry needs to happen tbh.
England would go down, but it would be fun.
Agree! Harry is active in causes that would inject new energy into the monarchy. He’s had his party ways but he’d settle down and be a great King imo.
I would love to see a King Harry. Heck, send him over to the US, he can be our king for a bit 😉
I bet Harry wouldd be a wonderful King. He knows how to work hard, engage with the people, speak well, and find passion in his work like with the military and continuing Diana’s causes close to her heart And now that he’s got himself a good suit he’s ready!
If it was between Harry and William Harry would only improve things.
Now if we can get Daniel of Sweden a good suit, he’ll be all set. I loathe his skinny-leg suit. The trousers are 3-4 inches too long and showcase how much weight/muscle he has lost with his health issues.
I don’t know how Prince George and his kids turn out in future but it’s nice to have a Monarchy just for the heck of it. Of course I wouldn’t be alive to see it in 100 yrs, so…..
Britain’s tourism industry relies on the income that the Royal Family attracts.
Why is there never any fan-fare when a child is born into the Saudi Royal Family?
Really? Tourists give millions to see Versailles, Monticello, the Mayan ruins, castles all over Europe, the Taj Mahal, etc. with no reigning monarchs in sight. I’m not sure why Brit monarchy lovers try and claim that Buckingham Palace just wouldn’t do as a tourist attraction without living monarchs.
I remember my theory as an eight year old DC tourist that they were hiding alien bodies in the basement of the Capitol building when we were accidentally taken down there on an elevator but not allowed to get off. It would’ve been a much cooler trip if I could have just walked around the entire building and seen for myself!
I’m not sure I’ve ever really understood that reason. I’ve visited England loads of times and it was never because of the royal family. Heck, I’m still pissed off at how much money I spent to tour Buckingham Palace just so I could say I did (the Belgian royal palace in Brussels was free…..just saying……)
That’s a misconception. A lot of tourism in London has to do with building’s with royal connections i.e Buckingham Palace – these would still exsist in a tourism capacity without royals.
Not to mention the many, many other attractions that have nothing to do with them. All the theatres, the London eye, Tussards – Stratford-upon-Avon is a huge atrraction in itself and has nothing to do with the royal family.
If I go to London, I’m not going with the expectation of seeing the royals at all. It’s not like the Queen’s going to meet me at the gate. In fact, there are lots of places I can’t tour, because they are royal residences. The whole “tourism” myth is such a delusion. Would no one visit the Tower of London if the Queen was no longer Head of State? No, I guess the whole history of the place would disappear and no one would ever visit. All that history, art and architecture that people want to visit would go away.
I doubt many people think of the tower as a royal palace. More people think of it as a prison than as a royal palace, and that’s why they visit.
Mind you, it exhibits the state jewels which are fabulous, but I don’t think they are as big a draw as it’s gruesome history.
Eh, people visit the Tower of London and no royals live there. Same would happen with other royal-related buildings.
Thank you, mazzie. I was just using the Tower as an example of a place that people would visit even if the monarchy were to disappear. I might has well have said The London Eye.
If I travel to the UK, the royal properties are truly at the bottom of my must see list. I would want to see the places where my ancestors lived in England and Ireland.
Most of the people where I live in the US are of English/Scottish/Irish ancestry, and I am not aware of a great adoration of the monarchy. I for one have always assumed the monarchy is part of the reason my ancestors went to great lengths and sacrifice to leave and start afresh in a new land.
Americans would never tolerate royalty for themselves but are still infatuated by the spectacle and pageantry of it all.
Every big event involving the British Royal Family is of interest to many of us living in the US and the media devotes a tremendous amount of resources in order to adequately cover them.
I’d visited England over a dozen times before I ever bothered to visit anywhere related to the Royals and I’m interested in royalty and history.
I will say that I don’t think Buckingham Palace would be much of an attraction without current royals. As far as palaces go it’s deeply unimpressive. A lot of people do go there thinking they might catch a glimpse of a royal, and the changing of the guard seems to excite people for some reason. Without that there’s not a great deal to recommend it when it’s so easy to pop over to France and visit Versailles or Château de Chambord, make a diversion to Spain to see the Alhambra etc.
That’s not really a problem since London isn’t exactly lacking tourist attractions and Buckingham Palace tourist numbers aren’t that substantial in comparison with other attractions anyway.
Agree on Buckingham Palace – it is an inferior piece of architecture, a gilded piece of Victorian pastry. I doesn’t compare to Versailles, Schönnbrünn or even Amalienborg, which is actual royal residence but since it consists of four beautiful rococco palaces, you canactually gain access to the one that isn’t inhabited. It has a museum and have recently been restored. Versailles is impressive but I actually prefer Schönnbrünn in Vienna because it has interiors that are much more beautiful and impressive. It is definitely worth a visit.
I’d like to go to Britain. I would not try to see the royal family. Well, okay, if I could see Harry I would, but that’s because he’s a hot guy — he could be an actor or a musician or whatever and I’d still be just as happy to see him. I actively do NOT want to see William and Kate, because I dislike them intensely. QE2, whatever, don’t care.
Britain has a ton of historical landmarks and a metric ton of beautiful nature. What does Stonehenge have to do with the royals? Big Ben is Big Ben with or without the queen. The moors don’t need royalty to legitimize them.
I only know that titles will always be important in the UK. That way of thinking is too much apart of the DNA.
Things change. Britain is an anomaly at this point in time.
I was just wondering that very thing. If the monarchy goes away, so do all the earldoms and what not go away as well?
Or become completely irrelevant to 99.9% of the people in the UK. Try watching the PBS series Great Estates of Scotland to see what it takes to keep those country houses running. Either you become a great business person and best landlord ever, or you lose everything.
Eventually the only people who will care will be those obsessive types who think the Almanach de Gotha means anything. The families listed in there can keep intermarrying with each other and eventually die out due to the genetic disorders caused by inbreeding.
Joy, Let’s hope so. British peerage/class/caste system does more harm than good. As long as there is a monarch, snobbery will trickle down from its head.
Could Britons retain their national identity and sense of history if they retired their royals to private lives in their own private homes with no tax payer funded anything? Royals could perform public duties a handful of times every year for your major annual traditions (Trooping, Remembrance Day etc).
Snobbery has nothing to do with a monarchy. Donald Trump wasn’t concerned he wasn’t part of America’s “upper crust” but smugly said his children would be. Go to any society event in the USA and you’ll find snobbery in spades.
I guess in America the “upper crust” thing is all related to $, whereas with the peer system I have always thought there was such a thing as people who have a title but not a ton of cash, but they’re still part of “society.” Is that true? I’m from a cow farm in rural Arkansas so my frame of reference is limited. And no that’s no sarcasm, true story.
Joy: aristocracy isn’t related to money although it helps see The Duke of Manchester.
North Star
Trump is so odd in his own way and consistently contradicts himself.
And I think the class system between our 2 nations are apples and oranges. They can’t be compared.
Northstar- Britain’s monarch IS the alpha and omega of the British class snobbery system. The monarchy created the peerage system and the reigning monarch with support by peerage members sustains it.
Snobbery in Britain is institutionalized. It is not in the U.S. They are very different brands of snobbery. I abhor any kind of snobbery. But the truth is, the former is far more harmful to society than the latter.
It’s probably due to his mother’s death, the media circus surrounding his parent’s marital problems and eventual break-up but William has grown up to be a resentful, arrogant, coddled little pr*ck who feels it’s his “right” to do whatever the hell he wants and keep public duties with the peasants to a minimum. He married a malleable airhead who’s decided that taking the easy way out is the best. Neither are at all suited to eventually taking on the responsibilities of the role of Prince of Wales. William and Kate will be the direct cause of the decline of the monarchy and Spencer is totally wrong when he describes Willnot as “popular”.
Bingo. I think Charles will make a decent king. But William is a disaster.
It’s because he’s a male who was raised as the heir to the throne of England. They’re almost always resentful, arrogant, coddled little pr*cks. He’s simply following tradition.
@ Emily C.
I totally agree with you. I would like to expand your description by one thought: Willnot doesn’t have the brains to hide his arrogant prickiness and his lack of work ethics. And lack of brains is a serious problem when the owner of such deficits is set to rise to high places.
If Kate’s first baby had been a girl – I’d have no doubt that the monarchy would survive. Girls are just better at being the symbol a their country. The daughter of …. the mother of … the grandmother of …
It just doesn’t work as well NOW with a male – Henry the 8th would cut off his own head if he were alive to read this. 😉
i remember the headlines “It´s a Prince” when George was born. One of the highest rating comments on the Daily Mail was something like “It´s just a boy? I lost every interest in this kid immediately.”
Female heirs among royalty are spoiled less. This also goes for males who are the spare and suddenly find themselves with the crown.
If Queen Elizabeth has the longevity of her mother it may still be a while before Charles becomes King. As someone with British ancestry, I do like watching the monarchy from afar. I think Charles could quite possibly be a good king for all of the reasons that you mentioned. He may be a bit of a stuffed shirt but he does seem to care about modernization. He would be a different sort of monarch. William and Harry both don’t seem to be that interested in their royal roles but I wonder if that might change as they get older? Especially now that William and Kate have children. I still find British royalty as fascinating as I did when I was a child.
Harry isn’t covered enough, but he is always working and still heavily active in his military role/career. And where William has not helped Charles in his duties Harry has.
It’s an unfair statement to claim Harry has taken no interest in his royal roles or duties.
And many here and other sites had hoped William and or Kate would find a charity they could find a passion for relating to children, families, or hard pregnancy. Instead they’ve not changed their ways. Just their PR strategist.
New PR guy set them up on Twitter and Instagram. He’s working hard to make them popular. I’m curious as to all of his methods for improving their image. I also wonder how long the new PR guy will stay on with William.
She has plenty of time to shop for Fair Trade earrings, but refuses to spend more time working for charity? Ah, irony.
yes interesting right? “Thrifty Kate” also has the time to buy her little dresses from Zara and Co. No words about the slave labours… but at least her earings are fair trade
That’s my take away here too. Shouldn’t this count as an event since she must have researched this family and sought out their jewelry? Or she walked into a jewelry store and bought some fair trade earrings?
FLORC, she walked into a jewelry store and bought some fair trade earrings – while out doing other shopping. She may not have even known they were fair trade but purchased them because she like them.
Hehe
Nota that was an attempt at sarcasm. So tough to pull off in text!
It was almost worded like Kate made the effort to buy jewelry that was supporting a family and it was homemade. I think it was just coincidence. Kate buys from very nice stores quite often. This seems like an isolated case of just buying stuff.
That’s an excellent point.
Can you imagine if Kate’s new PR guy went so far as to google which earrings to buy and where to buy them in order to make Kate look good? All that effort to make her shopping look beneficial rather than put effort into actually working…
My God, gurl’s hair is guh-lorious. Like, she just literally made me swish my own hair on her behalf.
I think that once Elizabeth II goes, there might be a revival of Republicanism. Personally, I’m good with the monarchy going away (Canadian here). I just don’t know what would replace it. The US system – no.
If the monarchy lasts to George, I’ll be surprised. William doesn’t want the crown. He wants the perks. If he doesn’t step aside before Charles’ dies, he’ll do it within years of his own reign. Dude just won’t want to do the heavy lifting or have his actions scrutinized even more.
Harry is close to his Spencer cousins. It’s William who has basically kept them at arm’s length.
William and Harry are both closer to their Spencer aunts than their uncle.
Charles may not be an OK king if he continues to suppress free press, meddle in politics and bury details about how much time he actually works and how he spends Duchy of Cornwall money.
My hunch is that Commonwealth citizenry will not be as deferential and much more demanding with him than they have been with QEII. I hope he will be required to be much more transparent and accountable for how much value his court returns to the Commonwealth.
Charles is supposed to be politically neutral but he is not. He has written lobbying letters to MP’s and has thus-far managed to prevent the Guardian from prevailing in their FOI request for copies of his letters. He also periodically makes off-the-cuff remarks that are politically incendiary.
Charles suppresses free press. Recent examples include his FOI battle with the
Guardian and his success in preventing the January 2015 airing of BBC documentary about PR work to manipulate Camilla’s image.
Charles imo intentionally provides as little reporting as possible about his official royal duties so that he can’t be held accountable. There is no security risk if he reports at the end of a year his actual work hours (not just # of annual engagements), ROI, detail on how he spent Duchy of Cornwall money, effectiveness of his charities, SMART goals and results. Fx, the number of annual appearances does not reveal anything about how hard someone worked or the effectiveness of their work. He doesn’t set SMART goals and account for results achieved. There is scant detail as to how he spends Duchy of Cornwall money. There is not enough detail in any of his reports to enable press or UK citizenry to question and hold him accountable.
Yup. Excellent summary, MinnFinn.
Sounds about right.
1) His lordship’s hips are perfect for birthing. BCoop’s ass has found a match. And also, please clone Harry before you Brits toss the Windsors.
I would say if immigration patterns continue such as they are, the British Royals may not survive into the next century.
But then people said televisions wouldn’t become popular and the internet was just a fad.
I think Charles is seeking attention to sell his book(s). He wasn’t good to his sister Diana in life and he u$e$ her in death.
I think it will end in less time than that. Either Charles or William will be the last King. And I don’t agree that William and Kate are that popular, they are highly ridiculed.
Charles and Diana never looked right together however they were interesting. William and Kate look right together but are extremely dull.
I should hope not~monarchys are a leftover remnant of a dark ages that needs to be in the past before any progress towards a viable future for ALL is possible. Any position of inherent power and superiority based on gentic happenstance needs to be questioned closely. Of COURSE that will not be what the ones holding those positions say, and they will do everything in their power to cling to that power, including controlling and suppressing media, making it criminal to question or advocate removal of such an anachronistic leftover of a feudal system, and denying the right of self determination for all.
I often wonder who will walk to church with Charles and Camilla on Christmas Day when he is King. He has worked hard to reduce the size of the working Royals. Who will be there when William is King? Kate, George, #2, Harry, his wife, the Middletons. Who will follow William when he is King? Who are his allies within the family. Seems like he is slowly distancing himself from his entire family in favor of spending time with the Middletons. The Yorks may be out, Edward and Sophie — can they manage (rumored) strained relations with Charles? Will future children of non-working royals have titles? With the shrinking of the Royal family combined with the question of Williams interest and ability/preparedness to lead, I could see the the royal family under William as being just celebrities, shrinking or dying out. Then you have to ask should the taxpayer pay for celebrities. Yes, I can see the royal family dying out in less than 100 years. I think Earl Spencer was being gracious.
Whether the British monarchy will continue is not something historians agree on. Though honestly historians don’t talk about it much. Pop historians discuss British monarchy, especially contemporary British monarchy, a lot more than academic historians do. Princess Diana just… isn’t that big a deal. Margaret Thatcher is.
Historians also HATE trying to predict the future. You’ll always be able to find some glory hound who can’t wait to predict things for a sound byte, but except for stuff that’s incredibly clear-cut (i.e. invading Iraq was a bad idea), historians generally prefer to hedge. Because they know that nothing is certain but death. Oh, also that the powerful will almost always abuse their power. That’s… about it.
What do you call an historian who predicts the future? A futurist.
I would just like to point out that the Express was wrong about Charles I’s execution. He was beheaded, not hanged.
Signed,
History Geek
I enjoy this about you (and LAK and FLORC and ArtHistorian and myriad others).
And I can only speak for myself, but you’re appreciated too nota! Great insight.
I am First Lady Of The Royal Celebitches after all. They don’t go around just handing out those titles!
That’s very sloppy writing – it is, after all, a very easy thing to fact-check.
I think we need to remember there are 16 countries involved in this question. I’m not sure about Britain itself, but at the very least I think the monarchy will lose some of the commonwealth realms before the century is over. I’m Canadian and dearly want my country to be a republic. I think before we see the monarchy completely crumble in Britain, we will first see the monarchy losing more of the commonwealth. If Canada and Australia cut ties (the second and third largest of the British monarchies respectively), then the whole thing will fall like dominios and their status will weaken everywhere.
Cora, would you want to see a system where the political head is separated from the “social” head (for lack of a better word)? That would be interesting to me, as an outsider. Expanding the Governor General of Canada role into public champion / government watchdog.
I agree with the comment above that if Baby George had been baby Victoria, Elizabeth or Mary, it would have saved the monarchy for a long time. As an American, I am much more interested in the monarchy because Queen Elizabeth is a queen and not a king.
I actually have a question about that. I remember reading that before George was born, there was a rule change allowing the baby to take the throne no matter if it was a boy or girl. Did that only apply to the future King or Queen, or to all nobility? My husband and I were talking about how it seemed unlikely to pass if it meant that all the men poised to take a title when their Father died had to give it up to an older sister. Of course, if it only applied to the role of queen or king, didn’t they stop for a moment and wonder how unfair it was in the rest of the nobility?
Did that make any sense?
Abby: they stopped at King/Queen.
They haven’t discussed it as far as the peerage is concerned.
Although, from time to time, a case has flared up where an older sister or a brace of sisters have pursued the matter in court or parliament to inherit title/riches. Therefore currently, it’s still a case by case matter. And not always guaranteed to succeed.
In the past, special permission was granted to special cases where the peer in question was allowed to make his daughter his heir. In all such cases, the peer had no sons, and often they had close ties to the monarch. In such cases, the daughter(s) inherited, but as soon as a male descendant was born, they were deemed the eventual heir eg The Churchills (Dukes of Marlborough) and The Mountbattens (Earl Mountbatten of Burma).
Aristo daughters have no official right to inherit the title of their fathers. Their father´s title and estate goes to the next male family member. When that happens the girls have to leave the house. Nice right?
Even female members of the royal family are in the same boat. For example Princess Beatrice will never become The Duchess of York after her father The Duke of York is dead altrough she is his firstborn child. A son would become the next Duke, but not a daughter. Neither Beatrice nor Eugenie can inherit, so the title goes back to the throne. Silly and sexist
love charles
i hope they cut bill loose
cant stand that kid and his wife
The monarchy:
When Thatcher destroyed a large chunk of the British industry the Queen said nothing.
When Prince Andrew cavorted with Epsteins sex slaves the Queen said nothing.
When Blair participated in the Iraq war the Queen said nothing.
When the investment bankers caused the financial crisis the Queen said nothing.
When Cameron introduced the bedroom tax and tripled university fees and pushed many into poverty and zero hour contracts and ultimately into suicide the Queen says nothing.
Nor did Prince Charles.
I don’t know why the Brits believe that having a monarchy is better than having no monarchy.
And when the then-Prince of Wales toured a Welsh mining town during the Great Depression & said, ‘something must be done’, he was soundly trounced by the press. Royalty has no place making ‘political’ statements, they said. Royalty is ineffectual, either way.
When he was Prince of Wales, Edward VIII used to make sweeping statements that he was going to do something about poverty etc but he never, ever did. He was all talk and no action but he was adored by the people. At least Prince Charles does try and do something and he was way ahead of his time with organic farming, architecture etc. The Prince of Wales scheme was also a great idea.
@ Hazel
I agree. British royalty is ineffectual. But it costs about 35mio Pounds a year plus considerable costs for security. Too expensive for such little value if any at all.
The Prince of Wales scheme does hardly make any significant impact on young people as it caters to a few thousand only. But there needs to be a scheme for about 1.0 – 1.2 million young people (16-24) who struggle to find apprenticeships or employment or education. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Not to mention those youngsters who are exploited in “apprenticeships” where they neither learn anything nor get paid except for a pittance.