Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy

[CHRISinUSA]

I quite agree with your point, Ilias_of_John.  However, even the Ministry of Defense - and Clarence House - has acknowledged that this particular decision was ill-advised - not so much because it was wrong, but because it left both the future king, and the armed forces, vulnerable to legitimate public outcry.  Right or wrong decision, public perception is everything.

[Ilias_of_John]

Yes you are quite right
And i seemingly remember that it was illegal for both of them to be on the same flight/aircraft for security reasons.
Or, perhaps that rule has been abandoned?

[CHRISinUSA]

I doubt it was every illegal, but was rather generally accepted practice - that the monarch and heir apparent (or the heir apparent and HIS heir apparent) never be on the same flight. 

But your point is well taken - here we had the 2nd and 3rd in the line of succession both in an aircraft flown by a brand new pilot - and to a stag party no less!  Had that plane gone down, we would eventually see King Andrew on the throne, and then Queen Beatrice.

[Kimberly]

Really didn't know where to put this "snippet" so I thought this thread was quite apt;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1061514/Catholics-born-daughters-allowed-throne-massive-reform-constitution.html

[Grace]

We can be sure of one thing here.  If the current government gets its hands on the constitution, you may be sure it will be watered down to the point where it ceases to have any meaning at all - just like everything else they decide to 'revise'.

[Robert_Hall]

I don't know Grace, but the British constitution is a very complicated set of rules and regulations based on court rulings, tradition and parliamentary  compromises. It is not easy to change anything. The succession would be a good start, however. That alone would not be an overnight process.

[joan_d]

The latest news today is that the Monarchy should be treated as any other Government dept and be totally accountable to taxpayers.  I think part of this is due to the escalating costs of maintaining Buck House which is crumbling by the minute. 

About time too. 

[mcdnab]

As Robert said unfortunately most politicians here are not quite aware of the raft of legislation that would need ammending or removing from the statute books to make the changes - the last time this was discussed by the newspapers was when Diana was expecting William but that primarily focussed on permitting the eldest child to succeed irrespective  (at that time most of Europe's surviving monarchies were looking at making changes many of them over the last 25 years have changed to absolute primogeniture rather than the male preference system - Sweden in 1980, Netherlands in 1983, Norway in 1990, and Belgium in 1991.)
Elsewhere the Danish government has had a first reading of a new bill to ammend their male preference system - however the bills hasn't had its second reading and there is no urgency since Queen Margarets grandson is older than his sister, the Spanish government has indicated it supports a change but has not done it yet, Monaco practises a similar system, Luxembourg is complicated because of various 19th Century family pacts but effectively men come before women there, Liechtenstein still practices salic law i think from memory. Spain currently practices the same system as Britain but the government has indicated it favours a change however the birth of a second daughter to the Prince and Princess of the Asturias removed the sense of urgency so whether it happens or not will perhaps depend on whether the Princess becomes pregnant again!
As to Britain to change to gender blind succession  wouldn't require a great deal of legislation - a simple Bill would do it - providing people don't tack on more ammendments relating to the religious questions and the rest of the countries of which the british monarch is sovereign would do the same.

As to the regulations relating to Royal Marriages - the Royal Marriages Act is effectively redundant although it is still used - a simple abolition would be fairly easy - however it would need replacing with something requiring immediate descendants of the monarch who were high up the line of succession perhaps limiting it to the descendants of George V or George VI or even Elizabeth II to require the monarch's consent or Parliamentary approval for their marriages.  Almost all European Monarchies still have some rules governing the marriages of members of their Royal Family either legal ones or family house rules enacted into law - after all you are still picking someone who will a) at points represent the country b) will require the support of the state in some way shape or form, c) may become Queen Consort or Prince Consort, and d) might be the parent of a future monarch.

Religion - the fact is that Britain is still a Protestant state - most of our anti catholic legislation stems from the chaos of the 17th Century - and the "Glorious Revolution" - James II attempts to lighten the load on Roman Catholics and his belief that he could be practising Catholic and remian on his thrones was mistimed and misjudged - not helped by his cousin Louis XIV's revocation of the Edict of Nantes (that had permitted some toleration of protestantism in catholic france) - Catholicism became increasingly associated with Absolutism and with Britains traditional enemies (France and Spain).

The most important remaining prohibition is that the throne is barred to anyone who is not in communion with the Church of England - if you remove that without disestablishing the Church of England then you have the potential for a Roman Catholic King or Queen who is in the bizarre position of being the titular Head of the C of E!  Uncomfortable for everyone. A British Monarch is also still required to sign the oath on accession preserving the protestant religion.  More importantly any change in Britain would have to be made in every other country of which the British monarch still rules - Britain can't move unilateraly to amend the rules - it would therefore dominate any government's legislative programme for quite a while.  

To give an example - William marries a Roman Catholic - Australia introduces legislation to amend the succession but the strong republican element hijack the debate results in a referendum monarchy abolished on the death of Elizabeth II, Canada introduces legislation to amend succession succesfully, Britain legislation introduced but bogged down in procedure and arguements over dis establishment of the Church of England - sudden death of Charles - William succeeds as King of Canada etc, Harry succeeds in Britain as Henry IX.

The idea of an hereditary monarchy is itself essentially discriminatory and i often believe that those who seem obssessed with the religious issue are often closet republicans - meddling with the whole kit and caboodle can cause more harm than good.  However abolition of the RMA (which says nothing on religion by the way) and introducing a bill to introduce gender blind succession would be relatively easy.

[Adagietto]

To change the succession law to allow the titular head of the Church of England to be a Roman Catholic would indeed be an exceedingly eccentric action!

[Learning]

Were not the Kings of Saxony in theory head of the Saxon Lutheran Church after they converted to Catholicism? IF I recall, they appointed a commission to carry out this function. Of course, the Queen is only the titular Supreme Governor so nothing would really change.

[Adagietto]

I'm sure something could be sorted out if the heir to the throne did convert to Catholicism, but that's a very remote possibility.

[toddy]

what i never could understand is  since Buckingham palace and windsor castle are part of the crown estate ...why doesn't the crown estate pay for the repairs to there properties since the crown estate owns them? 

[CHRISinUSA]

Because the Crown Estate has no responsibility to maintain the palaces. 

It's difficult for many (including myself) to understand the concept of "ownership" by a rather obscure entity known as "The Crown" - which is neither the Nation, nor the Government, nor the Queen herself.  But that's who owns it all - the Crown Estate, the Royal Palaces (occupied and historic) the Crown Jewels, and all the various other trappings associated with the monarchy - all owned by the Crown. 

What people (like me) really seem to want to understand is - if the monarchy ended, who would then own these assets?  It would be complicated, but in the end I have no doubt the nation would own virtually all of it.  But not today!  So, the real queston at hand is who "holds" or is "responsible" for each of these assets.  And that gets complicated because it has evolved differently for different assets, at different times.

The Crown Estate Commissioners are today responsible for maintaining Windsor Great Park and Home Park, but not the Castle itself.

For Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, St. James Palace, and part of Kensington Palace, the Crown owns all of them but the Government is responsible for funding their maintenance - they agreed to pay for that when George III surrendered the Crown's right to the Crown Estate revenues to the Government. 

Hampton Court, Tower of London, the rest of KP, Kew Palace, even the Palace of Westminster are all still owned by the Crown.  Except for Westminster (which is managed by Parliamentary officials), the rest are "managed" by a separate entity called Historic Royal Palaces.

[Robert_Hall]

If the monarchy were to be ended, the crown estates would most likely  simply change name to "the National Patrimony" just  like in other former [and current] monarchies.
 I have never understood the government's reluctance to fund nned repair and maintenance at BuchHouse, as it is a working office building with mainly civil service employees. At the very least it would seem to come under workplace conditions.

[CHRISinUSA]

Quite so Robert.  I wonder if Parliament would have as much financial restraint if Westminster were crumbling before their own eyes.  I bet that bill would pass rather quickly.