The Way Ahead Group / Modernising the British Monarcy

Started by SophieChloe, September 14, 2014, 09:08:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SophieChloe

Thread to discuss The Way Ahead Group & Modernising the Monarchy  :thumbsup:
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

TLLK

 Replace guards at St. James Palace with R2D2 and C3PO. Revamp livery to Jetson's/Star Trek look. Bring in Wookies as Buckingham Palace guards to save bears. Install hovercraft landing pad at BP. Eliminate cars, trains and planes by utilizing Star Trek technology to effortlessly move royals.

In All I Do

I think it's worth discussing the the subtle difference in meaning between "a modern monarchy" and "the modern monarchy".

The first is descriptive, and if someone says that the BRF is "a modern monarchy", I think that whether that's true or not is open to considerable debate, especially when you compare them to the Scandinavian monarchies. (Granted, it's somewhat relative... if you compare them to the monarchies in the Middle East who have actual political power, the phrase "a modern monarchy" is entirely appropriate).

On the other hand, if we say "the modern monarchy", we're comparing the current form of the BRF to past incarnations, and it's undeniable that the monarchy is more modern than, for example, when Elizabeth took the throne. I'd argue that transformation is an ongoing and gradual one.   So I would say that the British monarchy is "modernizing, but not perhaps modern". 

When we evaluate claims that the BRF claims to be "modern", we have to ask ourselves if the claim is "we are a modern monarchy" or whether the discussion is about "modernizing the monarchy". If we're going to judge them against the claims they're making, we have to be careful to make sure we understand their claims.

So.. what has the British Monarchy actually said about itself in terms of modernization?

TLLK

 Prince Albert and Prince Phillip had their own modernization campaigns when they became the consorts. Each made attempts to streamline the running of the palaces and the staff. Both took the opportunity to accomplish something significant (Crystal Palace Exhibition, DoE Prize) during their tenure to highlight an aspect of the nation.

On the whole I agree with Adrienne that with the BRF it is gradual and ongoing though it appears to me that there are steps forward followed by ones backward ie: Order of Precedence-ridiculousness :no: vs. adopting full primogeniture for the hereditary succession.  :banana:

Even among the Scandinavian monarchies there is still the tradition of curtseying/bowing which is IMO sometimes conflict with their modern image. No one love glitter events like the Danes, Swedes and on occasion the Norwegians when given the opportunity.  :clap:

HistoryGirl

I agreed with this in jest in another thread, but thinking it over more thoroughly, I think that making the amount of public funds a royal received directly related to the amount of duties they did in a year would be a great idea. It'd certainly be modern since that's how most people live.

In All I Do


What does making the amount of public money related to the amount of duties look like in a practical sense?

For example, how do you then deal with varying target value levels? So, for example, when we talk about security, clearly Harry is a much higher profile target than Edward to evil-doers. But obviously Edward does 3 times the amount of work that Harry does. So should Edward get security at three times the level, even if that means that Harry is thus left more exposed to danger?

HistoryGirl

Yes. If Harry feels in danger he would then dip into his substantial trust fund.

In All I Do

Fair. What about, say, Alexandra, who does about the same amount as Harry and has no trust fund.

HistoryGirl

Is she a substantial threat? If so the Queen may supplement the funds privately.

In All I Do

But I think I've seen you claim in the past that the queen has no private funds?

If that wasn't you, I apologize.

HistoryGirl

Where? I don't think so. The Queen obviously has private funds if Charles does. At the very most I may have said that she shouldn't have private funds but I don't even think I've said that.

In All I Do

I've obviously mixed you up with someone else. Again, sorry about that.

amabel

The queen has private funds. SO have Will and Harry now that they've inherited Diana's money.  Chas has a substantial income from the Duchy of Cornwall but I don't know how much he has of his "own" money

TLLK

Quote from: Adrienne on September 15, 2014, 10:32:23 PM

What does making the amount of public money related to the amount of duties look like in a practical sense?

For example, how do you then deal with varying target value levels? So, for example, when we talk about security, clearly Harry is a much higher profile target than Edward to evil-doers. But obviously Edward does 3 times the amount of work that Harry does. So should Edward get security at three times the level, even if that means that Harry is thus left more exposed to danger?

Unfortunately even little George and his future sibling would be a bigger prize than their great-uncle Edward and they don't do a darn thing yet.  (Though a few decades ago it would have been Edward as a IRA major target.)

Just like a POTUS' children or parents who do not perform public engagements on behalf of the nation , the security is still going to be required while their family member is in office. IMHO the security needs should be allocated to those who are considered at the highest risk.

Curryong

Quote from: TLLK on September 16, 2014, 11:19:17 PM
Quote from: Adrienne on September 15, 2014, 10:32:23 PM

What does making the amount of public money related to the amount of duties look like in a practical sense?

For example, how do you then deal with varying target value levels? So, for example, when we talk about security, clearly Harry is a much higher profile target than Edward to evil-doers. But obviously Edward does 3 times the amount of work that Harry does. So should Edward get security at three times the level, even if that means that Harry is thus left more exposed to danger?

Unfortunately even little George and his future sibling would be a bigger prize than their great-uncle Edward and they don't do a darn thing yet.  (Though a few decades ago it would have been Edward as a IRA major target.)

Just like a POTUS' children or parents who do not perform public engagements on behalf of the nation , the security is still going to be required while their family member is in office. IMHO the security needs should be allocated to those who are considered at the highest risk.

I agree with that in principle. The trouble is that attacks often come at the weakest point. So, God forbid, a minor royal left with, say one RPO at engagements, could have something horrendous happen to them while walking about or at home.

Lady Adams

@Adrienne, I've never heard that, but would welcome an article mentioning it. I always thought it would take place in London. Do you have a link?
"To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing." --Elbert Hubbard, American writer

In All I Do

It's honestly hard because the WAG figures deeply in the Diana conspiracy theory community.

But a search indicates credible sources that they've met there in the past: Post-divorce royal family to chart future | Herald Scotland

Paul Reynolds of the BBC described it, albeit in 1998, as taking place twice a year at Sandringham and Balmoral: BBC NEWS | Special Report | 1998 | Diana | The changing face of the monarchy

On a considerably less reliable note, in 2009, Katie Nicholl in her book about W&K "The Way Ahead group had met in summer of 2009 as it always did in the Queen's royal sitting room at Balmoral."   http://books.google.ca/books?id=k80T7Ggu6y4C&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=%22way+ahead+group%22+balmoral&source=bl&ots=wGGInO8d5J&sig=cIVgmXvcHXWzGtD1kAY2biOQ450&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_wcZVPqAJ4rlsASG1ICgDQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22way%20ahead%20group%22%20balmoral&f=false  Of course, even leaving aside the dubious punctuation, it's Katie Nicholl, so...

I thought I remembered a tweet by a royal correspondent earlier this summer about not expecting much of an announcement about William's future until after the WAG at Balmoral; OTOH, that turned out to be untrue, since it was announced before the Queen arrived there, IIRC.

So I think that, since it's historically been known to happen there, people largely assume it still does.  It's possible they've changed, though. 


cate1949

re: security - the problem with comparing POTUS and RF is that the children of POTUS do not get lifetime security - it stops when the parent stops being POTUS.  But a minor royal will be a minor royal for their entire life plus when we say minor royal do we mean aunts cousins etc - cause extended family of POTUS do not get security

so if we apply the POTUS litmus test - only the Queen's sons and daughter should get security and only while their parent is the monarch.

I think it is odd to talk about modernizing the RF since the very notion of monarchy is not modern in any way - of you support monarchy at some level you must be willing to accept the sort of dissonance between modern perspectives and the ancient notions that underlie monarchy.  Obviously adaptations to contemporary norms must be made but the fundamental basis can't be changed or else their is nothing there.

Lady Adams

@SophieChloe Thanks for starting this thread. Much better place for it!  :hug:

@Adrienne @wannable Thanks for the links! I always thought they met both times a year in London, and had their staff attend. Interesting!
"To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing." --Elbert Hubbard, American writer

TLLK

Quote from: Adrienne on September 17, 2014, 04:07:02 AM
It's honestly hard because the WAG figures deeply in the Diana conspiracy theory community.

But a search indicates credible sources that they've met there in the past: Post-divorce royal family to chart future | Herald Scotland

Paul Reynolds of the BBC described it, albeit in 1998, as taking place twice a year at Sandringham and Balmoral: BBC NEWS | Special Report | 1998 | Diana | The changing face of the monarchy

On a considerably less reliable note, in 2009, Katie Nicholl in her book about W&K "The Way Ahead group had met in summer of 2009 as it always did in the Queen's royal sitting room at Balmoral."   http://books.google.ca/books?id=k80T7Ggu6y4C&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=%22way+ahead+group%22+balmoral&source=bl&ots=wGGInO8d5J&sig=cIVgmXvcHXWzGtD1kAY2biOQ450&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_wcZVPqAJ4rlsASG1ICgDQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22way%20ahead%20group%22%20balmoral&f=false  Of course, even leaving aside the dubious punctuation, it's Katie Nicholl, so...

I thought I remembered a tweet by a royal correspondent earlier this summer about not expecting much of an announcement about William's future until after the WAG at Balmoral; OTOH, that turned out to be untrue, since it was announced before the Queen arrived there, IIRC.

So I think that, since it's historically been known to happen there, people largely assume it still does.  It's possible they've changed, though. 
Thank you for providing the information. I'd always been under the impression that the twice a year meetings were held at the Queen's private properties during their summer and winter breaks. IMO limiting the number of people present who are not BRF members might give the family the opportunity to have more open and frank discussions without the possibility of sensitive conversations being leaked.