Royal Insight Forum

A thread to discuss the Role, Popularity and the future of the British Monarchy.

The Role of the Monarchy

QuoteMonarchy is the oldest form of government in the United Kingdom.

In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.

Although The Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role, he or she continues to play an important part in the life of the nation.

As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.

In all these roles The Sovereign is supported by members of their immediate family.

The role of the Monarchy | The Royal Family (https://www.royal.uk/role-monarchy)

Royal news - Prince Harry just as popular as the Queen | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/959094/Royal-news-Prince-Harry-popular-Meghan-Markle-team-Windsor-Queen-Duke-of-Cambridge)

QuoteThe Ipsos Mori survey, which is compiled from 20,793 interviews online focusing on adults under the age of 65, found that Prince Harry was named the most-liked member of the Royal family in Britain and South Africa with 42 per cent of the vote.

The Queen was most liked by 11 out of the surveyed 28 countries, including Saudi Arabia, Brazil and China.

Royal fans from the US appear to admire the Duchess of Cambridge the most and the Duke of Cambridge is most popular in France.

QuoteThe ginger prince today enjoys the same public popularity as the Queen, with 23 per cent of the public vote in a survey.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge followed with 17 and 18 per cent of the vote.

Prince George got 10 per cent of the vote, Princess Charlotte got nine per cent and Prince Charles received eight per cent.

Here is the link to the actual IPSO Mori poll. It surveyed people in the UK and around the world.

Royal Wedding 2018: International perceptions of the Royal Family (https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/royal-wedding-2018-international-perceptions-royal-family)

IPSO Mori is a well respected polling company. These internationl polls are quite unusual, actually.

Yes I was surprised that they conducted an international poll especially since they polled opinions outside of the Commonwealth.

But in third place favorable, which has to do with impression of the Royal. Quite right, as William impression perception is superior.

I knew Kate is the most popular in the USA.

  Going to overlook the tabloid headline and point out some of the details. Unfortunately I cannot find a link to the actual poll results on the Opinioum site so I'll "dissect" the Express article."

Summary:  Support for the monarch continues to be high in the UK at 63%. (Don't have access to the poll so I don't know what the "neutral/no opinion/unsure or unfavorable results were." The most popular royals are the same three with the following favorable ratings:  Prince William- 73%, QEII-70% and Prince Harry-70% who jockey from first to second to third by just a few points depending on the poll and the year.  IMO this has been a  consistent  pattern for years now. Catherine as usual comes in  fourth 62% and a bit ahead of her sister-in-law Meghan 39%.  Meghan does well IMO considering that she is still new to the Windsors. The ones that have to be concerned continue to be the next monarch/consort: Charles 40 %-tied with DoE and Camilla-24%.

In other words, nothing really shocking in the latest poll.  :D :Jen: :windsor1:



Royal family: Kate ahead of new mum Meghan in popularity poll | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1126156/royal-family-kate-meghan-popularity-poll-royal-baby)

38% are neutral towards Meghan, 12% have an unfavourable view, 9% are very unfavourable. 65% agreed with the Sussexes' decision to keep details of Meghan's pregnancy and birth out of the public eye and 77% think Meghan has settled in well in her new role since joining the Royal Family.

I truly think HM belongs at the top and deserves it. Just my take on it.

Generally speaking, the top three, Will, Harry, the Queen, have been the same in poll after poll, whichever polling company is involved. They just exchange positions sometimes. The one who is really in trouble IMO is Camilla, though Charles's position, considering he is POW and a workaholic, is pretty diabolical. This polling over and over again for years won't please those at CH.

They didn't ask the specific question this time AFAIK about her being crowned as Queen. She probably will be but it may well be against public opinion. And, as Camilla has taken up many worthwhile causes I can't see that these results for her in poll after poll year after year are attributable to anything but the events of a quarter of a century ago.

(Though, to be fair, in this poll we don't know whether Anne, the Wessexes, the Yorkies etc were included. If they were they might be behind Camilla, though considering Anne and Sophie do great work too, their figures shouldn't be low. They generally are in such polls, though.)

The survey was 'commissioned' hence not yet available for 'free' public viewing at their site Opinium ? What people think, feel and do (https://www.opinium.co.uk/)

Their search engine does provide 'old' royal polls, surveys, opinion pieces about the BRF. Once the new survey commissioned order is available for free downloading, it will probably be 1 year old. Time for a new survey.  A year in time may change polled opinions of the UK public.  Like YouGov site, this is quitesentially a British Co.

That figure for support of the British monarchy in general, is lower than other polls taken. It has been suggested that this particular polling company is left-leaning and therefore their constituency would contain more republican voters than others.

They have a very thorough survey system.

For example: Approval for Meghan Markle doubles as nation readies for royal wedding - Opinium (https://www.opinium.co.uk/approval-meghan-markle-doubles-nation-readies-royal-wedding/)
Download the excel sheet, which tells us the tools used, only British nationals, the status of people surveyed, where they live, etcetera.
https://www.opinium.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Monarchy-Tracker-28-11-17.xlsx


Edit to add: Reading their old polls and surveys, it's important to the BRF, the firm, its advisors, staff in all three households BP, CH, KP to work with good PR, or Paradise papers deals a blow to the Queen's favourability ratings - Opinium (https://www.opinium.co.uk/paradise-papers-deals-blow-queens-favourability-ratings/)   Basically, I agree with Richard Palmer's latest tweets about the actual May 2019 Survey, which @TLLK opened this thread, he basically says that those royals mentioned in the poll (their advisors, the men in grey, the royals themselves) should read what the Brits think about them, in order to improve their ratings.

Meghan before royal wedding technically was not a royal family member. Just saying.

Well, I don't know how Camilla is going to improve hers, considering she tours overseas on soft diplomacy missions with Charles, goes on many engagements, has worthy causes under her belt and it was believed at CH that regular Royal work would improve things. You can't change the past, unfortunately for this couple, and Charles for instance cannot work more than he does.

Some things might play into Charles's low figures, a certain eccentric yet spoiled image, adoption of alternative causes, the Edwardian style of living as well as his first marriage. Yet how to explain Camilla if not for her role in the disintegration of the POW's first marriage.

In a way you can argue that polls don't mean anything, and it's true that members of the BRF keep on keeping on regardless and never cease to be Royal. On the another hand there would be few heirs to the throne and their consorts who would rejoice over those figures.

I don't think Charles will like this. It's been made clear that he won't step aside for William. Plus he has invested time and money in P.R.

@Curryong, @wannable, @sandy-Thanks for your thoughts on the topic.

I do agree that the top three have been there for years now and will likely remain so for the coming years. I would be VERY concerned if I was at CH because those numbers rarely seem to move upward. Now I do expect a traditional bump for both when the new reign begins, but I could be proven wrong.

Besides the monarch, the popular members are the Queen's "working" grandsons and their spouses. IMO this does bode well for the monarchy, but anything is possible

Would love to see if the Queen's children: Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie were included.

Kate and William overwhelmingly loved by Brits ? Meghan fails to attract same popularity | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1200041/kate-middleton-news-popularity-poll-prince-william-meghan-markle-prince-harry-royal-rift)

QuoteBRITAIN remains a staunch royalist nation ? thanks to The Queen and the Duchess of Cambridge. But pollsters found opinion is deeply divided over Prince Harry?s wife, the Duchess of Sussex, with the younger generation on her side.

I'd like to see the full polling results for this survey, not just the cherry picking by the Express, which commissioned this poll. I'd like to see the positive/negative figures for Charles and Camilla. And for William. And which other royals were in this poll? Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie, the Wessexes?

I only know Harry got a 70% approval rating because of one remark by one of Palmer's followers (the Queen was on 73%) but Richard Palmer and the other Express journalists  apparently hid that little nugget in their anxiety to portray Meghan as disliked by the entire British population, something that didn't stand up when you get into the body of these Express articles.

And if Harry got 70% approval and Kate 67%, how come the article emphasises that 'the Monarchy is being upheld thanks to the Queen and Kate'. A bit of fudging of figures going on there, or what?

It would be good if I could find these elusive complete and full figures by the Public First lobby Company for Metro, which supposedly conducted this poll. I would like to see the methodology they used for this as well.

Here's the full poll spreadsheet http://www.publicfirst.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/PF_Royal.pdf
Here's the methodology and poll carried out for Metro, The Express basically copy/pasted the report.  New Metro Poll on the Royal Family - Public First (http://www.publicfirst.co.uk/new-metro-poll-on-the-royal-family.html)  The poll was conducted yesterday.

Thank you very very much for posting this, wannabie. I thought when I first saw those articles that the Express were highlighting some, cherry picking some, not mentioning some.

It's 1AM in the morning her but I will be taking a look in the morning, Aus time. At a brief first glance Charles's figures don't look exactly sparkling, for a start. Not that those sort of results are new for him.

The Duchess of Cambridge is not going to be Queen Regnant.  William is the future monarch and is next in line after Charles. Kate can only be consort and can't "uphold" the monarchy like the Queen can.

Quote from: wannable on November 05, 2019, 01:13:35 PM
Here's the full poll spreadsheet http://www.publicfirst.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/PF_Royal.pdf
Here's the methodology and poll carried out for Metro, The Express basically copy/pasted the report.  New Metro Poll on the Royal Family - Public First (http://www.publicfirst.co.uk/new-metro-poll-on-the-royal-family.html)  The poll was conducted yesterday.

\

Thank you for finding this poll and linking it to the site @wannable. Like @Curryong I don't care for tabloid articles that do tend to "cherry pick" to create an eye-catching headline.

QuoteMetro Poll on Royal FamilyFieldwork: 28thOctober?31stOctober2019Interview method: Online surveyPopulation represented: UK adultsSample size: 1005Methodology:All results are weighted using Iterative Proportional Fitting, or ?Raking?. The results are weighted by age, gender, region, Social Grade, 2017 General Election vote and 2016 EU Referendum vote. Target proportions are derived fromcensusdata and election results.Public First is a member of the BPC and abides by its rules.For more information please contact Public First

Like all polls not every person in a nation/region etc..are polled but this one did gather the opinions from a variety of ages, genders, socio-economic status and across the entire UK so IMO this is a fair representation of how the UK is viewing the monarchy and some of the more prominent members. (It didn't ask about Sophie, Timothy, the Gloucesters or Kents)

I did appreciate that it inquired how citizens felt how the BRF should prioritize its activities.  Majority wanted a focus on the UK instead of overseas and promoting its businesses and that the members should avoid politically sensitive topics.

---

Double post auto-merged: November 05, 2019, 04:06:46 PM

---

BTW just noticed that they didn't get opinions on Camilla which I thought was odd considering that she's the future Queen/Princess consort.
Also, I thought it was unnecessary to ask if they felt sorry for Meghan.

QuoteThe Duchess of Cambridge is not going to be Queen Regnant.  William is the future monarch and is next in line after Charles. Kate can only be consort and can't "uphold" the monarchy like the Queen can.

I disagree with this view as opinion polls have consistently demonstrated that the late  QEQM, the DoE and other foreign monarchy consorts are often considered to be either well respected or very popular in their respective nations and are often considered to be principle supporter to uphold their nation's monarchies. Sometimes even more respected or popular than their spouse who is the monarch.

The Queen Mum made sure her husband shone and she was supporting him. He was IMO the one who counted. I would see that as Kate's role with william. William will be the monarch like his grandmother is. It should not be  a case of Kate being "more" respected or popular, JMHO. More as a complement. that's how I see it.

I believe that we already see this happening with the Cambridges as the couple do appear to support each other privately and publicly. IMHO Catherine will be seen as one of her spouse's greatest supporters much like we saw with QEQM and that we've seen with the DoE.

HM The Queen - 73% positive / 10% negative

William - 71% positive / 9% negative

Catherine - 66% positive / 9% negative

Harry - 57% positive / 18% negative

Anne - 44% positive / 12% negative

Charles - 44% positive / 22% negative

Meghan - 41% positive / 29% negative

Philip - 40% positive / 24% negative

Edward - 22% positive / 21% negative

Andrew - 16% positive / 47% negative


It?s actually pretty shocking at least to me that only Prince Andrew has a lower negative number than Meghan. 


Also: Who is better at representing modern Britain (only W&K and H&M given as options):

William & Kate 57%

Harry and Meghan 24%

It's all very well for respondents to that survey to want a focus on Britain and British charities. Hard for Harry (and Meghan) to achieve in practical terms however, as Harry knows that the Commonwealth is important to his grandmother, and also the his father and indeed, the BRF.

The result was that he was specifically appointed Commonwealth Youth Ambasador by the Queen, and will be expected to undertake long tours there in the future, with his wife, and both will be expected to concentrate largely on Commonwelth matters. Because, believe me, this organisation is important to the BRF's future image and role in the future, even when the realms go, as I believe they will sooner rather than later.

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on November 05, 2019, 10:18:46 PM
HM The Queen - 73% positive / 10% negative

William - 71% positive / 9% negative

Catherine - 66% positive / 9% negative

Harry - 57% positive / 18% negative

Anne - 44% positive / 12% negative

Charles - 44% positive / 22% negative

Meghan - 41% positive / 29% negative

Philip - 40% positive / 24% negative

Edward - 22% positive / 21% negative

Andrew - 16% positive / 47% negative


It?s actually pretty shocking at least to me that only Prince Andrew has a lower negative number than Meghan. 


Also: Who is better at representing modern Britain (only W&K and H&M given as options):

William & Kate 57%

Harry and Meghan 24%

There is a large gap between Meghan's negative number and Andrew's. And Philip is retired.

It also depends who was surveyed and these sort of numbers tend not to stay the same. And william and Kate would have different standards, since William is a future King

QuoteIt?s actually pretty shocking at least to me that only Prince Andrew has a lower negative number than Meghan.

Well to be fair if Camilla had been included in the poll, I suspect there might have been another family member with a similar ranking. :wink:

But it's not all positive/negative, and even the positive/negative are nuanced. There are reasonably high neutral figures for all of them, that is, neither pro nor con, reflecting the fact that Britons aren't all that bothered by the RF on a day to day basis.

If you look at Edward's figures of positive/neutral for example there is a one point difference. I would bet there's a large neutral component there, reflecting that in fact few members of the British public know much about him.

It's ridiculously hit and miss IMO, that the company included Charles but not Camilla, Edward but not Sophie. I would expect Sophie to be a bit better known by the public than Edward because of various articles about her close friendship with the Queen, plus her charities to do with sick babies etc.

And Charles, the next King, has figures that are certainly nothing to write home about, even with his wife's non presence on this survey, considering he is one heartbeat away from the throne.

QuoteIf you look at Edward's figures of positive/neutral for example there is a one point difference. I would bet there's a large neutral component there, reflecting that in fact few members of the British public know much about him.

Something that Edward has been known to joke about when greeting the Christmas Day well wishers on the Sandringham estate. He more or less says "You probably don't know who I am." :hehe:

40 percent approval isn't bad, their strategist for those royals in that number may seek where to improve. Its quite easy to identify what.

I am not so sure the royals use these surveys as a "model". Courtiers and advisers have that job and they do monitor the media but I am not so sure how dependable that survey is as a "benchmark."

Quote from: wannable on November 06, 2019, 02:01:29 AM
40 percent approval isn't bad, their strategist for those royals in that number may seek where to improve. Its quite easy to identify what.

Consider how a politician would view those numbers! They'd be thrilled with a 40% favorable rating! :happy:

Every (best) industry, firms use surveys, it's a quantitative solution.  Make the questions, hire a survey co. and the returns help them decide.

In the case of the royals, they don't need to hire, Ipsos and YouGov do it for free as part of the United Kingdom institution; Monarchy and Politics. Note: the 2 poll/survey co. mentioned are the best in the UK, some of their top management individuals form the BPC (British Polling Council).

@TLLK exactly.

Surveys come and go and change.

Quote from: wannable on November 06, 2019, 03:06:53 PM
Every (best) industry, firms use surveys, it's a quantitative solution.  Make the questions, hire a survey co. and the returns help them decide.

In the case of the royals, they don't need to hire, Ipsos and YouGov do it for free as part of the United Kingdom institution; Monarchy and Politics. Note: the 2 poll/survey co. mentioned are the best in the UK, some of their top management individuals form the BPC (British Polling Council).

@TLLK exactly.

If the various royals who were the subjects in this survey consider take to the results as an indication of how the British public views them, then that is their choice.  :nod: On the other hand, they can choose to ignore them as well.

Quote
Queen's call-up for Beatrice and Eugenie: Monarch wants her granddaughters to take on more duties after Harry and Meghan quit as senior royals
Queen understood to want Beatrice and Eugenie to do public engagements
Courtier tells how Queen thinks her granddaughters should attend more events
Prince Charles believed to be content for them to step up to attend royal events
I can reveal that the Prince of Wales would now be content for them to step up.
?The Royal Family has already become slimmed down with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex giving up public duties,? a close friend of Charles tells me. ?As the older members of the family retire, it will become slimmer still, so there are spaces to be filled.
?His Royal Highness is very fond of his nieces and would not stand in the way if they did want to carry out more duties.?
Queen's call-up for Beatrice and Eugenie: Monarch wants her granddaughters to take on more duties | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7979719/Queens-call-Beatrice-Eugenie-Monarch-wants-granddaughters-duties.html)

And we know this is true because it appears in the Fail? Gimmee a break!

But let's play the game of Its True. Charles might be so-so OK with this so long as he doesn't have to financially support the sisters into old age. He might regard it as a back door to Andrew getting back into public life again though and Fergie getting lots of publicity through her 'girlies'.

I can't see Eugenie being enthusiastic about taking on a whole pile of Royal engagements however.

She hates being referred to as a Princess, according to friends, and therefore all the deference etc on public occasions would probably get on her nerves. She seems to be quite content with a fulltime permanent job, a husband and a private life.

And over 100 engagements a year? Don't think so! Beatrice maybe, as she hasn't really got steady employment.

However, both women probably want families and even if both only have two children that means absences for months in the future years and the possibility they wouldn't want to leave their babies and young children afterwards. (Might not be able to afford a full time nanny.)

Moreover, it's ironic that the Fail is spouting this, as for years they were the main conduit for all those 'partying, always holidaying York Princesses' articles, with both sisters (and their mother)  'always clubbing' and Bea seen on luxury yachts in the South of France.

The yelping commenters of the DM won't be happy if this occurs either. They've been screaming for years in the comments section about the sisters being parasites on public money, not having 'any' jobs, being wastes of space etc!

If this story turns out to be true about the York Princesses taking on royal duties after their father was sidelined and the Sussexes chose to step back from official royal duties, then I believe that it could work with Charles' plan for a "slimmed down monarchy."

IMO the proposed slim down monarchy would have the following: Charles, Camilla, Cambridges, Sussexes, and Charles siblings. The Gloucesters and Kents would be retired. However with the exit of the DoY and the Sussexes there is a loss of three full time royals who are younger than the next monarch/consort.
Now a prospective full time line up would see: Charles, Camillla, Cambridges, Wessexes, and Anne. I would have the part timers be  Beatrice and Eugenie much like Princess Alexandra is part time.  ( I am not anticipating Andrew, Harry and Meghan to return to full time royal duties.)

Now full time security could be limited to those who currently require it: Charles, Camilla, Cambridges with the others receiving it for duties. (I'm expecting that the exiting DoY and the Sussexes will not require full time security in the future.)

With the departure of two members of the BRF who were in their thirties, there will need to be some assistance from people of the same generation as the Cambridges.

^ Yes, shortly explained by Richard Eden. 

As long as the courtiers of the three households; BP, CH and KP manage their 'introductions' correctly and set the 'rules' to the Princesses (and their spouses, and the direct family members) I see no issues.  Fair play rules of what was negotiated to HandM, in other words full IN or OUT, no half half, no making moneys. If not, that would be a blatant slap in the face, and the public uproar will be uncontainable.  The introductions need to be done where the Sussex were supposed to, planned to, etc. be present.

I had heard the rumours during the announcement of the Japan State Visit, so will see.

Also this provided the BRF the opportunity to test a possible plan that can be implemented for Charlotte and Louis that more or less is modeled on the Dutch plan. The Monarch's younger children have careers and perform part time royal duties.

Oh yes, Richard Eden knows it all! 

TLLK, Harry performed over 200 engagements in 2019, Meghan away on maternity leave for most of the year over 80. Without another baby she would probably have over 130 under her belt.  And the Yorkies, on a part time basis, are supposed to cover that number! As I've pointed out Eugenie has a full time job, her own charities and a husband and home. How do we know that Jack or Edo for that matter, will be quite OK with their wives travelling to different parts of the country or even overseas, especially after they have a family.

I appreciate that the Sussexes departure has left a gigantic gaping hole in the under 50s line up in the BRF. However I just cannot see that the none too popular York sisters bringing back the crowds. Eugenie's wedding didn't see too many viewers tuning in, comparatively speaking, and yet she and her sister are going to be the new youth hope of the BRF!!  :hehe:

And probable attendance at the banquet for the Japanese State Visit is not the same as a calendar of engagements even if they are parked on a couple of greeting duties with the other royals on this occasion.

Part time royals doing the sort of duties the youthful Alexandra did are now rare. Most young royals have vibrant careers of their own going, and that includes Eugenie, however much she might want to help out Grannie I can't see her doing more than a couple of dozen a year. She loathes the 'Princess' thing and has for years. She enjoys her private life.

---

Double post auto-merged: February 08, 2020, 01:03:53 AM

---

Quote from: TLLK on February 08, 2020, 12:54:36 AM
Also this provided the BRF the opportunity to test a possible plan that can be implemented for Charlotte and Louis that more or less is modeled on the Dutch plan. The Monarch's younger children have careers and perform part time royal duties.

Yes, we saw how that worked out for the Wessexes!

From reading the CC it appears that majority of the  domestic engagements that the BRF undertake are for their patronages.  The remaining number being divided between official events or State Visits, receptions and bread and butter domestic visits.
While I don't expect the York princesses to undertake the number of engagements of a full time royal, it will be helpful to have a BRF member to meet with local dignitaries, attend receptions and cut ribbons to open a newly renovated hospital wing. It will ease the loss of three full time royals who were expected to be there for the reminder of QEII's reign and for Charles's. The Firm will have to adapt to the new reality.

As I've said, I do not expect Eug to come fully aboard this new plan, (if it is one and not a product of Eden's imagination, which is likely.) Beatrice maybe, we will see. Fergie would be absolutely ecstatic and never off her IG.
Andrew would be given a boost by this as well, and I'm not sure that's an objective of courtiers at BP, or of Charles.

I have nothing against either sister.

However, it's very amusing that a rag that promoted both as party girls for many years, getting their commenters riled up with insults against these two Princesses, are now projecting them as vital royals in the new line-up. Wonder whether those vile articles will disappear. 

Oh the vile articles that have been written over the past ten years or so about their weight, vacations, clothing choices etc...won't go away. The tabloids make too much money off of those. :notamused:

The York princesses have dealt with these in the past and should Eden's story be true, it's pretty certain that they'll know to expect them in the future.

---

Double post auto-merged: February 08, 2020, 02:18:47 AM

---

So for the time being we don't know if the story is true or not and the big story today from the York family is the formal announcement regarding Beatrice and Edo's upcoming wedding.

^
I think that Charles would be relucntat because the York's aren't popular, but over time, I think they are reaching the stage where the press/public are vaguley tolerant of them.  They don't much like them but they are willing to accept them.  Just as Anne's never been much liked but has been accepted as a Royal worker who works prtty hard even if she does not get that much press attention or admiration.
  But What Charles has been nervous of is taking on the financial support of his nieces or cousins for life.  THat's why he wanted the slimmed down monarchy with only those closest to the throne doing royal work..  for the present it was meant to be the 2 sons and their wives, with back up from his siblings and cousins.  but the cousins are getting pretty old, and Andrew has now gone.
I think its possible that Charles may arrange for a  strictly limited helping out set up, where it is clear that this is for a few years only, and that he will not be supporting the Yorks in perpetuity.. though he will give them a reasonable allowance and probably continue to help them in later years.  Otherwise the RF are just going to have to drop a lot of patronages and I don't think he wuodl want that to happen abruptly.   There will be some cut backs, and the RF wont take on more charities etc.. they will be working towards the newer set up but not dramatically dropping a lot of work.  It has come at a bad time, as Bea and Eugenie are probably starting families.. but if they are willing to do it, I think its not the worst idea.  Who eles can help out?  Eds children are too Young.  The Phillipses have never been doing anything and they have tehir own careers.

This seems reasonable. The working royals are all getting old.

Only PE and the countess of Wessex can be counted on to work alongside PW and DOC for the coming decade or so.

They need more people and to have princess Beatrice and prince Eugenie do 40-50 engagements per year is not a bad idea.

Quote from: oak_and_cedar on February 08, 2020, 10:54:18 AM
This seems reasonable. The working royals are all getting old.

Only PE and the countess of Wessex can be counted on to work alongside PW and DOC for the coming decade or so.

They need more people and to have princess Beatrice and prince Eugenie do 40-50 engagements per year is not a bad idea.

Its far from an ideal solution.  They're not that popular, they may not even want to do it though they MAY feel it is their duty.. and Charles will problaby want to put in safeguards about the financial side of things. ANd it may set Sarah off wild with excitement that her girlies are now working princesses..

Quote from: oak_and_cedar on February 08, 2020, 10:54:18 AM
This seems reasonable. The working royals are all getting old.

Only PE and the countess of Wessex can be counted on to work alongside PW and DOC for the coming decade or so.

They need more people and to have princess Beatrice and prince Eugenie do 40-50 engagements per year is not a bad idea.

Agreed. To be honest they don't have much of a choice at this point with the absence of three full time royals. Anne appears to be in very good health, but she's close in age to Charles and Camilla. The Wessexes who were both born in 1964 are sixteen years younger than Charles and IMO have proved themselves to be solid and supportive members of  the Firm despite their rocky entrance into full time royal duties in the early 2000's. With the departure of the Sussexes, there  is a need for more help from the younger generation. If the York princesses can assist as part-timers, then IMO this will be beneficial to the BRF.

Quote from: TLLK on February 08, 2020, 02:55:30 PM
Agreed. To be honest they don't have much of a choice at this point with the absence of three full time royals. Anne appears to be in very good health, but she's close in age to Charles and Camilla. The Wessexes who were both born in 1964 are sixteen years younger than Charles and IMO have proved themselves to be solid and supportive members of  the Firm despite their rocky entrance into full time royal duties in the early 2000's. With the departure of the Sussexes, there  is a need for more help from the younger generation. If the York princesses can assist as part-timers, then IMO this will be beneficial to the BRF.

the thing is that they might not be that interested.  Bea is getting married.. Eugenie's married.  They will probaby be having babies soon.  It IS very difficult whether to try and use other royals on a very occasional basis, or for the present crowd to do more.. or they just drop some of the charities.   I wonder if the RF hope that Harry (with or without Meg) may come back in a year or so.. or if they feel he would just not be welcome.

Do you think that either Princess Beatrice or Princess Eugenie might participate in Alexandra Rose Day?

I really think this is all just fake news from the DM. The York ladies are probably a bit publicity shy at this point, anyway.

Not sure how Edo would react, unknown quantity, would he want to do appearances with Bea if this is true?

Quote from: sandy on February 09, 2020, 11:29:43 PM
Not sure how Edo would react, unknown quantity, would he want to do appearances with Bea if this is true?

I should not think so.  If this happens it will be very limited and just on a "need to help out" basis.  It will be just the sisters or one of them..  there's no need for ther husbands to show up

I agree Queen Alex. IMO I wouldn't be surprised if it's just the princesses. Their husbands will be working so truly we'll only see them at national events in which the extended BRF attend ie: Trooping the Color or private ones ie: Christmas church service. As for the York princesses should they begin to take up a small number of royal duties, I expect that they'll probably begin by  accompanying their grandmother to events ie: Maundy Thursday.

Here's QEII and PE at St. George Chapel for the Maundy Thursday service in 2019.

Every Photo of Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Eugenie Celebrating Maundy Thursday 2019 in Windsor (https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/g27193790/queen-elizabeth-princess-eugenie-maundy-thursday-photos/)

Quote from: QueenAlex on February 10, 2020, 09:21:39 AM
I should not think so.  If this happens it will be very limited and just on a "need to help out" basis.  It will be just the sisters or one of them..  there's no need for ther husbands to show up

Edo has a professional life of his own, anyway. 

And yet Edo and Bea were with Andrew and Fergie at the Chinese ambassador's home, formal pictures, and a official verified tweet from the Amb stating Andrew was ther in behalf of the Queen.

I'll believe it when it is announced by BP or KP and HM.........everything else is just gossip and rumors not to be believed at all...

Quote from: Nightowl on February 11, 2020, 07:26:51 PM
I'll believe it when it is announced by BP or KP and HM.........everything else is just gossip and rumors not to be believed at all...

Idoubt If they will announce it anyway, they dotn want to make it sound official... They will just use Bea or E if they feel it is appropriate....

Would the criticism in the blogs/comments now that Meghan and Harry are not there, focus on the York sisters? If this story is true.

Quote from: QueenAlex on February 11, 2020, 07:28:57 PM
Idoubt If they will announce it anyway, they dotn want to make it sound official... They will just use Bea or E if they feel it is appropriate....

I agree it would likely be just for the occasional event without much fan fare much like when Eugenie accompanied QEII to the Maundy Thursday service last April.

Quote from: sandy on February 11, 2020, 07:56:23 PM
Would the criticism in the blogs/comments now that Meghan and Harry are not there, focus on the York sisters? If this story is true.

What have Harry and Meghan to do with Bea and Eugenie?

---

Double post auto-merged: February 11, 2020, 09:05:24 PM

---

Quote from: TLLK on February 11, 2020, 08:50:22 PM
I agree it would likely be just for the occasional event without much fan fare much like when Eugenie accompanied QEII to the Maundy Thursday service last April.

Yes... IF they are used - and I don't know if it is all likely, it will be very limited?and unofficial.    Its just to cover over the sudden loss of Andrew and the Sussexes.. and over time they will phase out more of the charities.

Bea and Edo went with Andrew and Fergie by invitation to the Chinese Ambassador's home, the later used his official social media feeds to express what Andrew in name of the Queen said; the coronavirus, we are praying, all at it together to that effect.

Why would Bea and Edo go to a formal dinner at the Ambs home with professional picture taking too?

Quote from: QueenAlex on February 11, 2020, 08:58:29 PM
What have Harry and Meghan to do with Bea and Eugenie?

---

Double post auto-merged: February 11, 2020, 09:05:24 PM

---

Yes... IF they are used - and I don't know if it is all likely, it will be very limited?and unofficial.    Its just to cover over the sudden loss of Andrew and the Sussexes.. and over time they will phase out more of the charities.

Plenty, the media likes royals they can criticize the DM and other tabs were not exactly "nice" to the York girls.

Quote from: sandy on February 12, 2020, 12:10:09 AM
Plenty, the media likes royals they can criticize the DM and other tabs were not exactly "nice" to the York girls.

yes all royals get crtiicsim.  ALl Royals have times when they are praisd and times when they get a lot of negativity.  Its no different for Bea and Eugenie.. they have had bad press, now I think that its fading and they are regarded as good for an occasional story but not really of interest.  they will have bad stories sometimes and good ones at other times. 

I think they will be scrutinized more of course if they are given royal duties. The comments could be unkind, especially about what they wear.

Quote from: sandy on February 12, 2020, 01:47:12 PM
I think they will be scrutinized more of course if they are given royal duties. The comments could be unkind, especially about what they wear.

yes but what is the issue?  Of course they will get some criticism.  They have never been that popular.  If they don't take up duties, they will probably fade into beign tolerated & accepted by the press, as not particurally liked or disliked.. If they do some duties they will probably get some criticism   But Im sure they can handle it.

Quote from: sandy on February 12, 2020, 12:10:09 AM
Plenty, the media likes royals they can criticize the DM and other tabs were not exactly "nice" to the York girls.

They've had their share of criticism. For one thing, they seem to have enough funding to purchase expensive clothing, and the British public may resent it because they feel it's coming from their tax dollars. And then, many times their clothes are not flattering. When they go for high fashion they don't always take their most flattering styles and colors into consideration. And then, Bea has been extremely work shy - at one time the media was counting her vacations per year. IMO Bea will not have to work at all if she doesn't want to, since her husband seems to be well situated. She may just opt for a few dates per year, but no full time royal work. Eugenie seems to be settled in doing what she is now doing, so she also may just opt for a few dates per year.  Of course, I could be so wrong....maybe they are both hoping to make careers of working for the firm?

Quote from: Princess Cassandra on February 15, 2020, 09:28:10 PM
They've had their share of criticism. For one thing, they seem to have enough funding to purchase expensive clothing, and the British public may resent it because they feel it's coming from their tax dollars. And then, many times their clothes are not flattering. When they go for high fashion they don't always take their most flattering styles and colors into consideration. And then, Bea has been extremely work shy - at one time the media was counting her vacations per year. IMO Bea will not have to work at all if she doesn't want to, since her husband seems to be well situated. She may just opt for a few dates per year, but no full time royal work. Eugenie seems to be settled in doing what she is now doing, so she also may just opt for a few dates per year.  Of course, I could be so wrong....maybe they are both hoping to make careers of working for the firm?

I doubt it.   Maybe when they were younger they liked the idea, but now they have made lives for themselves and Bea does not seem to be much of a worker.  ANd they've both realised that they haven't had good press so problaby  now that they are beginning to be less criticised in the papers, that they have settled into "accepted but not loved", they dont want to undertake a public life. Besides both are married/getting married and probably planning families so i'd say if they are persuaded into taking on some work it will be on a very limited basis.  It may be said to them that with the 3 gone, there is a gap that's difficult to fill at short notice so  can they help out?

Quote from: QueenAlex on February 12, 2020, 01:53:55 PM
yes but what is the issue?  Of course they will get some criticism.  They have never been that popular.  If they don't take up duties, they will probably fade into beign tolerated & accepted by the press, as not particurally liked or disliked.. If they do some duties they will probably get some criticism   But Im sure they can handle it.

IMO they can handle criticism as they've both been subjected to it for years now.

Quote from: TLLK on February 16, 2020, 02:28:06 PM
IMO they can handle criticism as they've both been subjected to it for years now.

I agree that they've never been that popular. but I think the press got bored with knocking them, and the 2 of them have slipped into background royal status.  I think that they were hurt/bothered by the criticism because ther'es no real harm in them, and a lot of it was due to the fact that they caught hell from the unpopularity of their parents..   OK Bea is a party girl.  Neither of them are snappy dressers and they do seem a bit aimless but they are not BAD people.  I think that now, the press has other targets, they are now both on the verge of marriage and motherhood and probably a fairly quiet life and the press wont bother to attack the many more.

Beatrice is in Pakistan with very powerful leaders rather than celebrities to exclusively promote that country's snow skiing mountain.  She is with the local President and Prime Minister.  One of the Spanish leaders with her said that skiing in Pakistan is not their thing, but the mountain and it's surroundings is breathtaking and 'virgin'. 

But the aim is obviously huge publicity for skiing in Pakistan, which is not a primary locale for British skiers (and no use this promotion going to Western Europe, France, Austria etc as they have their own resorts and nobody there knows who Beatrice is.)

Will Beatrice get enormous publicity for this in the British media? Doubtful, considering who she is and the fact that a lot of Brits don't really know who she is.

And who do you think goes to these more unusual skiing spots? It certainly isn't Joe Blow struggling along on 40 pounds a week! The hope may well be to get dozens of celebrities there!

However unfortunately Pakistan doesn't have the best reputation in the West and some skiers may hesitate about going there for a break.

Beatrice wants to watch that the tabloids don't have a field day talking about the backgrounds of these Pakistani leaders, who has invested their own money in it, (whiffs of corruption perhaps)  and how she got to lead this posse. Andrew perhaps, or Fergie, or both, know them, so could be a double edged sword.

And if the crack about celebrities was aimed at the Sussexes (a) they don't hang around with a whole heap of celebrities in their private lives, and (b) I can name several world leaders that Harry has met who are and have been far more prominent in world affairs than those on this expedition.

I found the results interesting considering that the family (working and non working members) have not had the easiest start to 2020.

As with all opinion polls, not every person in a nation is asked their opinion.

Daily Question | 18/02/2020 | YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/travel/survey-results/daily/2020/02/18/8b405/1)

Poll question issued  on February 18th 2020. 

3142 GB adults surveyed
62% say it should continue to have  a monarchy.
22% say it should not continue to have a monarchy.
16% say they didn't know.

Click on the link to view the breakdown of gender, region, political party and social grade.

62% is on the lower end of the scale actually, which hovers usually in the 70%s and has on occasion gone into the 80s. More don't knows perhaps as the anti monarchists generally hover in polls at just under a quarter of the general population.

These sorts of figures will hold IMO while the Queen lives. She is regarded as untouchable, even by republicans. It's what happens with a new unpopular monarch that will be of interest.

Yes I agree @Curryong that it is  on the lower end of the scale than in the past, but IMHO I had expected it to be lower.

Quote from: TLLK on February 23, 2020, 09:50:41 PM
Yes I agree @Curryong that it is  on the lower end of the scale than in the past, but IMHO I had expected it to be lower.

I think the monarchy will last. Im not sure if It should.  I'd like to see Charles get his chance but I don't think ti would break Will's heart if he didn't become king...

1 - HMQ

2 - The Duchess of Cambridge

3 - The Duke of Cambridge

4 - Princess Anne

5 - Prince Harry


More: The most popular royalty in the UK | Politics | YouGov Ratings (https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all)

How to drop your rating in 3 months. 101Megxit

I think it is really a bit sad that Charles is not among the top ratings, and comes lower than WIll, Kate and Harry.  Will and Kate are younger and "attractive" and they do a decent enough job but I don't think either of htem are a quarter as hard wrokers as Charles.

The Diana/War of the Wales debacle 101, What not to do - moan and air ones dirty laundry for the entire planet, although his hard workaholic working has gained him from worse to bad to regular numbers, but never up there or recoverable. Same with Camilla.

Quote from: wannable on April 07, 2020, 01:20:39 PM
The Diana/War of the Wales debacle 101, What not to do - moan and air ones dirty laundry for the entire planet, although his hard workaholic working has gained him from worse to bad to regular numbers, but never up there or recoverable. Same with Camilla.

I think that yes, its still affecting him, years later.  Of course he has his faults and he may be a bit na?ve and a bit too activisit.. but I think that it is the Diana factor that affect some people still and makes them cool on him.  but it still seems unfair that Will Harry and Kate should be above him, when he has worked all his life.. and they havent

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 07, 2020, 12:30:40 PM
1 - HMQ

2 - The Duchess of Cambridge

3 - The Duke of Cambridge

4 - Princess Anne

5 - Prince Harry


More: The most popular royalty in the UK | Politics | YouGov Ratings (https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all)

Thank you for sharing @PrincessOfPeace

---

Double post auto-merged: April 08, 2020, 02:47:45 AM

---

Here's another article on that recent YouGov rating.

The Queen reigns in a new poll on royal popularity ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/the-queen-reigns-in-a-new-poll-on-royal-popularity-140429/)

QuoteA new YouGov poll has placed The Queen firmly atop the list of most popular royals, with a 78% rating across all age groups.

Sitting in second place is The Duchess of Cambridge, who trails by five percent points at 73%. Her husband, The Duke of Cambridge is the third most popular royal, at 66%.

If the ratings are adjusted by age demographic, Kate leads the popularity contest among millennials, with 85%; The Queen is just behind with 72% and Prince Harry sits in third place, with 67% of the vote.

Among Gen Xers, The Queen, Kate and Princess Anne are the top three most popular royals. The Queen receives 73% of the vote, Kate receives 68% and Princess Anne receives 63% of the vote.

Among Baby Boomers, The Queen and The Cambridges are the top three most popular royals. The Queen receives 76% of the vote, as does William; Kate receives 73% of the vote.

Men count The Queen as the most popular royal, with William and Harry in second and third place, respectively. The Queen receives 69% of the vote, William 60% and Harry 57%.

Women place The Queen, Kate, and William in the top three spots. The Queen receives 76% of the vote, Kate 74% and William 70%.

Overall, the top 10 most popular members of the Royal Family (across all ages) are: The Queen (73%), William (65%), Kate (63%), Harry (63%), The Duke of Edinburgh (49%, though he is officially retired from royal duties), Anne (48%), The Prince of Wales (46%), The Duchess of Sussex (44%), Zara Phillips (42%, a non-working member of the Royal Family her entire life), and The Countess of Wessex (31%).

The Duchess of Cambridge has been named the nation's most popular royal

Good Morning Britain: Twitter (https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1280784469344075776?s=20)

Most popular royal named in major new survey - and it's not the Queen - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/most-popular-royal-named-major-22291856)

QuoteThe Duchess of Cambridge has been named the most popular member of the Royal Family, several places above her sister-in-law Meghan Markle.

Kate was the clear winner of the Daily Mirror's survey of more than 4,000 people, taking the top spot by more than 500 votes with 35%.

The Queen was in second place with 928 votes, followed by Prince William and then his younger brother Harry.

Princess Anne was up next, with the Duchess of Sussex coming in sixth place.

Zara Tindall, who doesn't have an HRH royal and is popular for her relatability, comes in at number seven.

Sophie Wessex, who has stepped up since the coronavirus pandemic and has been described as the royal family's 'secret weapon' is up next.

We don't know how that Mirror survey was conducted. If it was a phone poll it could have been extremely unscientific as many run or commissioned by newspapers frequently are.

---

Double post auto-merged: July 09, 2020, 11:55:34 PM

---

Kate is placed in this (probably) unscientific poll above the Queen and Princess Anne as well as Meghan. Why no headlines like 'Kate is nine places' (or however many it was) 'in Mirror survey above Charles and Camilla, our next King and Queen!'?

That didn't occur though, did it, because Meghan is the current whipping boy of the British tabloids. It must be a huge disappointment to the editors after British tabloid  newspapers' three year continuous  ha*te campaign against this couple that Harry is as high in polling as he is and that Meghan is on the list at all.

I agree that it would be a more comprehensive look if the Daily Mirror had shared how it conducted the survey.

Quite, other major UK papers when sharing a article/survey/poll, they notify the company that carried it out/paid for/private, rather than publicly done for free by any of the 5 major poll and survey Co.'s in the UK. The latest paid for was carried out by the Daily Express by requesting YouGov and it's methodology.

After saying that, and searching GMB/ITV invited Russel Myers before yesterday, RR of the Mirror, and the Daily Express reported it today as a Daily Mirror Survey with their Subscribers, No. 3 in the UK, and the paper's political allegiance is with the Labour Party, which makes it weirder that Kate won  :lol:

---

Double post auto-merged: July 10, 2020, 05:55:05 PM

---

ETA: the methodology is crucial other than what I mentioned above, the editor of lifestyle is female, did she only use female subscribers? what group age of the 4000, what political alignment of each subscriber? are the most important and basic when comparing and contrasting with YouGov's methodology - their excel spreadsheet details will give you the number, the percentage of vote for each royal. i.e. William and Kate are no. 1 within the Millennial and Woke generations, whilst Harry and Meghan are no. 1 with the baby boomer generation. Then what political party is each persons preference, usually YouGov balance the universal polling system by 50/50.  And the Conservatives are usually voting for monarchy, for a specific fav royal, the labour party goers are usually to the tendency of 3 way; some monarchist, some don't know, some if I have to choose they go for H and M.

This is my take on polls. If the question is who is the most popular royal, its always good to come out on top. I agree opinion polls dont tell the whole picture but its still better to be first rather than last.

The Duchess of Cambridge has always been popular. Her wedding captured the nations imagination. 

You were quite fine when Harry came first then in the YouGov polls? And what do polls say then about the popularity of the next King and Queen Consort, as they usually come stone motherless last or near to it, whichever company is undertaking the poll?  (And considering the tabloid media's battering of the Sussexes and the fact they are not working royals, it must be a considerable disappointment to these editors that this couple are not in the same position in this survey as Charles/Camilla.)

^In other words the methodology of this survey is probably as crooked as a dog's leg.

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on July 10, 2020, 06:45:15 PM
This is my take on polls. If the question is who is the most popular royal, its always good to come out on top. I agree opinion polls dont tell the whole picture but its still better to be first rather than last.

The Duchess of Cambridge has always been popular. Her wedding captured the nations imagination. 

Well I believe that the royals around the world would agree with you that being first is better than being last. :Jen: :windsor1:

Now only 35 percent of those who took part in the poll see the Duke of Sussex as a positive asset for the royal family. Although he is not the least popular royal it is a shocking plummet in approval from the general public. Only eight years ago Prince Harry's approval rating was 75 percent according to YouGov.

The Duchess of Sussex had only a 38 percent approval rating in the poll.

The Queen remains the favourite amongst the UK's population. A total of 81 percent of those asked saw her as an asset to the monarchy.

Next in line of approval was Prince William. He was followed by his wife Kate Middleton. Prince Charles came in fourth place in the approval rating.

Prince Harry branded a 'liability' to Royal Family as his popularity in the UK plummets | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1311460/prince-harry-news-popularity-poll-meghan-markle-royal-family-latest)

Interesting that it did compare the results to those taken in June 2012 (Summer Olympics year) and I'm pleased for Princess Royal and the Duchess of Cornwall who saw a rise in their numbers.  :)



https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wte7yyb35l/SunOnSunday_Results_200716.pdf

Putting this here since some of our royals made the top 10. Poll was taken yesterday.

TOP 10 YouGov Most Admired Man (UK Results).   

1. David Attenborough
2. Barack Obama
3. Prince William
4. Bill Gates
5. Dalai Lama
6. Boris Johnson
7. Jeremy Corbyn
8. Keanu Reeves
9. Nigel Farage
10. Pope Francis

TOP 10 YouGov's Most Admired Woman (UK Results)

1. Queen Elizabeth II
2. Michelle Obama
3. Jacinda Ardern
4. The Duchess of Cambridge
5. Greta Thunberg
6. Malala Yousafzai
7. Nichola Strugeon
8. Angela Merkel
9. Emma Watson
10. Oprah Winfrey

Twitter (https://twitter.com/theRumble9/status/1309529302891933699?s=20)

Thank you for sharing @PrincessOfPeace .

Oprah?  Heh. 


And Keanu?  Er...why? 

@Macrobug67 because of the third installment of "Bill and Ted!!!" :lol:

Riiiiight :teehee:

This list, in the surface, seems more serious and conservative than the 100 Times.  No Kim Jong Un or Xi Jinping.

Keanu is a (real) charity giver (money and quiet participant, no photo ops, perhaps a unprofessional picture of someone in the inside who broke the promise of no mentions) with no airs and graces unlike many of his Hollywood counterparts.
Oprah like her or not, she gives (real) moneys to charity, basically her priority is education. The IRS in the USA reports about 70% of her foundation truly goes to charity, the 30% to the foundation employees.  So that percentage is very good to excellent. 

They just seemed to be random on a British list. 

Yes mostly rather silly.....

Our Royal Favourability tracker shows that Harry and Meghans popularity has plummeted since March:

Prince Harry: +1 (-19)
Meghan Markle: -26 (-18)


Overall Royal favourability since March:

The Queen: +71 (+2)
William: +65 (-4)
Kate: +62 (+5)
Philip: +28 (+3)
Charles: +24 (-7)
Camilla: +1 (-5)
Harry: +1 (-19)
Meghan: -26 (-18)
Andrew: -73 (-2)

- YouGov

Royal popularity: Harry and Meghan drop significantly | YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/entertainment/articles-reports/2020/10/28/royal-popularity-harry-and-meghan-drop?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_questions&utm_campaign=royal_favourability)

I have to admit that I am always sad when I see the Sussexes' recent numbers as I do believe that they could have been a great asset to the current and future reigns. Though the couple still is held in favor by the younger population in the UK, it is unfortunate that the older generation is split on Prince Harry when they used to regard him more favorably and has a lower opinion of the Duchess when compared to her past ratings.

The rest of the family: QEII-Not surprised that HM and the DoE remain popular with some gains. :Jen: The PoW has dropped a little though. Camilla seems to be moving upwards from the past ratings, though I don't believe that she'll ever be very popular with the nation. The Cambridges have held at a steady place. Prince Andrew can boast the highest negative ratings.  :notamused:

I think it's a first in our lifetime, - negative percentages.

Harry 1% (I remember he had a high 70 something in his lifetime)

And Andrew totally deserves -75%, translate that to 0.75

I think Meghan is getting her -25%, 0.25 thanks in part to Harry (I believe Omid when he said that Harry wanted to leave, met Meghan who was perfect for that)

Quote from: wannable on October 30, 2020, 08:33:40 PM
I think it's a first in our lifetime, - negative percentages.

Harry 1% (I remember he had a high 70 something in his lifetime)

And Andrew totally deserves -75%, translate that to 0.75

I think Meghan is getting her -25%, 0.25 thanks in part to Harry (I believe Omid when he said that Harry wanted to leave, met Meghan who was perfect for that)

Accurate polls?! That's quite a feat.  The negative ratings,downgrades and biggest losers are eloquent of what people polled (and the UK, if the polls were representative) expect of the BRF: people who, like Anne, do not consider the prosaic duties often required, unworthy of their "talents" and have sufficient self-esteem to be able to play second fiddle in the hierarchical organization.

Two thirds of Britons (67 percent, +4 since March) say that Britain should keep its monarchy, while only 21% would prefer that the country have an elected head of state.

More details below but overall good news for the monarchy

How do Britons want the future of the Royal family to look? | YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/12/03/how-do-britons-future-royal-family-succession?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=royal_family_future)

@PrincessOfPeace -Thank you for sharing the results via the link. I've reviewed them and was pleased to see a small bump up from March.  I was not surprised to see that the older generation tend to be the greater supporters with the younger ones being less so. The old question of who should succeed QEII is raised again... <_< and unfortunately it doesn't favor Charles who would  obviously succeed his mother when her reign ends.

QuoteIs the monarchy important to Britons?

Two thirds of Britons (67%, +4 since March) say that Britain should keep its monarchy, while only 21% would prefer that the country have an elected head of state.

Most adults who were polled believe that QEII did play an important role during times of instability.

QuoteThe monarch is seen as the symbol of the nation, and have been considered to have a vital role in holding Britons together during tough times. This still seems to be the case, with more Britons now saying that the Queen plays an important role at times of national crisis than did so before the COVID-19 pandemic.  Over six in ten adults (63%) say the Queen plays an important role in times of national instability, +7 points since November 2019.

The succession question again.

QuoteWhile the established rules of succession are clear that the oldest child of the sitting monarch should inherit the throne, adults in Britain are unsure about whether to follow the rules or break from this tradition.

Two in five (41%) adults want to see Prince William ascend to the throne, marginally higher than the 37% who want to see Prince Charles take over.

Which couple will have the most influence in the coming years the choices were Charles/Camilla, William/Catherine and Harry/Meghan?

QuoteDespite this split, adults are in agreement about which Royal couple will have the greatest influence over the coming years; over two thirds (68%) say Prince William and his wife Katherine the Duchess of Cambridge will play the biggest role in shaping the future of the family.

Queen unveils her seven new frontline royals who will 'make up for lost time' in 2021 | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1370751/Queen-news-royal-family-latest-Kate-Middleton-Princess-Anne-Sophie-Wessex-team-2021)

Queen agrees 'New Firm' plan for 8 senior royals as lineup pictured for first time - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-agrees-new-firm-plan-23144800)

Queen forms 'New Firm' of eight senior Royals to attend events without Prince Harry, Meghan Markle or Prince Andrew (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/13435480/queen-agrees-new-firm-of-eight/)

Not since Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Duke of York departed firms in 2019 due Duke of York still investigation on Jeffrey Epstein and his ex girlfriend?s and Duke and Duchess of Sussex move to California

The Queen gathered most of the rest of the RF, several of whom live not too far away, as a get together before Xmas and as a gesture of support for the Thankyou train tour which turned out in the end to be contentious over the borders of the U.K. No other reason. She wasn't making a gesture about who is senior and who isn't, who's going to be her 'front line' or anything else. That was tabloid rubbish, pure and simple.

If you look at the line up, excluding HM (95 next birthday) what an elderly crew! Of the eight, three are in their 70s, one, Camilla, is well into her seventh decade. The Wessexes, who don't exactly set the world on fire and never have, are in their 50s and even Edward will be 60 before too long. Leaving one couple in their 30s and in truth not far from 40. Not exactly inspiring for those in the British population who are under 30.

Why is it not exactly inspiring to people under 30?  Of the *Fab Four* Meghan is the oldest with an opinion rating in Britain down with Prince Andrew.

Despite a few nationalist/republican politicians trying to score political points, the coverage was overwhelming positive, with even Nicola Sturgeon having to back off her comments.

I really dont understand this tortured relationship Meghan supporters have with the monarchy. On one hand they need to denounce the BRF to justify M&H walking out, but on the other hand they keep reminding us that Harry is still the son of the Prince of Wales.

Its quite bizarre imo.

I thought that Harry and Meghan would come up when I broached this subject. I have on several occasions written here that I wished that Harry had stayed in the ranks of the working royals. However, due to the way Meghan was treated within the Palace and the media, making her miserable, Harry backed his wife to the hilt and left the BRF.

However, my remarks today had nothing to do with the Sussexes remaining or leaving. (I feel btw, the couple are, in spite of tabloid and commentors sniping that they are lost, miserable etc, very happy and comfortable away from the confines of Palace life, and are looking forward to an independent future.)

I have always felt that any royal family (who after all represents the nation, not just the BRF) works better with many generations on board, from, if possible, people in their late teens to the very old.

For instance in the BRF at one stage, various sectors of the population could identify with the very old Queen Mother, then Princessex Margaret and Alexandra to the middleaged Queen and Prince Philip, Charles and his much younger wife, as well as the Queen's younger children of various ages. I never cared for Andrew much but plenty did when he was considered a dashing naval officer in the Falklands. Then there was plenty of interest, both negative and otherwise, in Fergie and the York daughters. The teen sons of the Waleses caused a storm of interest.

In my view, large age gaps in the immediate Royal family are not particularly good in any Royal family for drawing in sectors of the population to show interest in them. That is particularly so with younger people when there are no people in the later teens or early twenties in the family. (In the Netherlands for example there is much interest in the heir and her sisters, the three As, and in Denmark Christian and Izzie are growing up fast.) Teenagers and people in their twenties aren't particularly interested in children of seven and under, however cute they may be.

I've often said here that when the Queen goes, that's when the litmus test for the BRF will be. Charles and Camilla are not popular, Charles's siblings on the Royal roster work hard but are middleaged and older, and William's children will still be years off fulltime public duties. (I happen to believe only George will be fulltime in the future, anyway.) Beatrice and Eugenie are clearly not interested in working for the Firm. They are/will be starting their own families.

I think Sturgeon and the Welsh Minister of Health said what many of their constituents felt, actually. It's been said here many times (and not just by me) that most British people really aren't ra-ra about the BRF, as they were in say the 1950s. It's just a 'we can't think of anything better and it seems to be OK so we'll keep it' situation with whole swathes of the population. And, whether you believe it or not, whatever enthusiasm there is for the BRF noticeably recedes in Scotland, Wales and the further north you go in England. It's been proven to be so.

---

Double post auto-merged: December 10, 2020, 11:35:11 PM

---

'Does Scotland resent the Royals?'

Does Scotland resent the Royals? - UnHerd (https://unherd.com/2019/11/would-scotland-ditch-the-monarchy/)

---

Double post auto-merged: December 10, 2020, 11:38:44 PM

---

Wales (and rest of UK) survey.

The areas of Wales that love the Royal Family the most (and the least) - Wales Online (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/royal-family-support-wales-queen-17299194)

The new firm is now Queen Elizabeth, Prince William and Kate, Prince Charles and Camilla, Prince Edward and Sophie, and Princess Anne.

I think this is better after so many years of drama. I don't see the potential for tabloid drama. The public should be happy with this scaled-down version of the British Monarchy.

I don't know that any Briton of under 25, viewing that lineup, with four over-70 year olds (one in her mid 90s) two in their mid-50s and one couple under 40 (just) who would feel terribly invested in their royal family. More than they are already, which in younger Brits is fairly neutral anyway. I stand by my view that drama or not, (and sometimes everything needs a periodic shakeup) the more people in their twenties and teens in a royal family the more responsive younger people are.

Quote from: Blue Clover on December 16, 2020, 01:32:23 AM
The new firm is now Queen Elizabeth, Prince William and Kate, Prince Charles and Camilla, Prince Edward and Sophie, and Princess Anne.

I think this is better after so many years of drama. I don't see the potential for tabloid drama. The public should be happy with this scaled-down version of the British Monarchy.

I agree. These are the members of the royal house (borrowing the Dutch term) who will be the most active in the coming months. HM's cousins will likely to be continuing their duties but might prefer online engagements for health reasons.

The British Monarchy are riding high according to yougov survey 3rd December 2020.

Quote
Brits want the monarchy to continue but are split about succession to the throne after Queen Elizabeth II

18-24 year olds also want William and Kate to suceed to the throne, hence the percentage number herein due to the #nextgen versus the older. The excel sheet icon/subscription appears in the bottom of each yougov survey, details of methodology may be found there, which breaks into the super details of map location, age group, etc. the demographics, political left or right, etc.

William's number is high here because of the wokey gen

Quote
(41%) adults want to see Prince William ascend to the throne, marginally higher than the 37% who want to see Prince Charles take over

In reference to the question of Influence, all age groups voted high for William and Kate

Quote
(68%) say Prince William and his wife Katherine the Duchess of Cambridge will play the biggest role in shaping the future of the family.

One in eight adults (12%) think Prince Charles will have the biggest effect on the direction of the Royal Family.

Their exit from the Royal Family last year sees only 7% of adults thinking that Harry and Meghan will be the biggest influence on the family.

This opinion on succession and influence broadly follows our latest Royal favourability tracking, which shows Prince William on a positive score more than twice as high as that of his father.

The periodic shake up will come in 15 years with the #nextnextgen Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis.

Quote from: sara8150 on December 10, 2020, 08:44:49 PM
Queen unveils her seven new frontline royals who will 'make up for lost time' in 2021 | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1370751/Queen-news-royal-family-latest-Kate-Middleton-Princess-Anne-Sophie-Wessex-team-2021)

Queen agrees 'New Firm' plan for 8 senior royals as lineup pictured for first time - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-agrees-new-firm-plan-23144800)

......

Sweet!  Kate  :blowkiss:  HM which evoked a happy smile from HM.  The senior royals seem to get along and the British Monarchy is stronger for it.

Quote from: sara8150 on December 10, 2020, 08:44:49 PM
Queen unveils her seven new frontline royals who will 'make up for lost time' in 2021 | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1370751/Queen-news-royal-family-latest-Kate-Middleton-Princess-Anne-Sophie-Wessex-team-2021)

Queen agrees 'New Firm' plan for 8 senior royals as lineup pictured for first time - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-agrees-new-firm-plan-23144800)

Queen forms 'New Firm' of eight senior Royals to attend events without Prince Harry, Meghan Markle or Prince Andrew (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/13435480/queen-agrees-new-firm-of-eight/)

Not since Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Duke of York departed firms in 2019 due Duke of York still investigation on Jeffrey Epstein and his ex girlfriend?s and Duke and Duchess of Sussex move to California

So glad she is including herself in that eight....we are so lucky to have her.  And to think she was the one who came up with the idea for a reunion outside of Windsor Castle.  She is amazing!

The most popular royalty in the UK

The Duke of Cambridge, HMQ and The Duchess of Cambridge are 1, 2 and 3

The most popular royalty in the UK | Politics | YouGov Ratings (https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all)

Wow! Thank you for sharing the latest update from YouGov.  I believe that fourth is the highest popularity ranking that I've seen for the Princess Royal in the "ALL" category with a You Gov rating.  :Jen:

My iPad is playing up again! Where are the future King and Queen, Charles and Camilla, in these new YouGov ratings?

@Curryong-Speak in a soothing voice to the technical device and pay homage to it :notworthy:. That might appease it.

The PoW and Duchess of Cornwall were 7th and 9th respectively in the "All" category for this most recent You Gov rating.

5-Phillip, 6-Zara, 8-Harry, 10-Sophie, 11-Meghan, 12-Edward, 13-Eugenie, 14-Beatrice....and (drum roll) 15-Andrew.

Thankyou TLLK. I've tried all that. Cuddles, stroking, soothing music, nothing works!

So the future King and his Consort still languish. Not a good prospect for the new reign. And why are YouGov continuing to include non-working members of the Royal family, some of them barely seen, in their surveys?

QuoteThankyou TLLK. I've tried all that. Cuddles, stroking, soothing music, nothing works!

Oh dear. Is there an ancient device ie Walkman that could be sacrificed to appease your IPad??? :cry:

I have never understood why Zara, Beatrice and Eugenie are included in the YouGov ratings.

My iPad will soon be going where all old and obstinate creatures go. It may not like it but that's the way the cookie crumbles!  I haven't told ipad #2 yet but I will be getting a new computer #3 soon to replace it, having put off the purchase, due to Covid etc closure of all Apple stores last winter, for several months.

I could have bought online during that time but I prefer taking a look in-store. It's just getting the motivation to spend hours looking and shopping for goods, which I don't like very much, except in bookstores!

@Curryong-Hoping that IPad will behave itself until the new computer arrives and that we can all return to normal in store shopping soon.

Tom Sykes at the Daily Beast had this article discussing the so called Royal Magnificent Seven and their collective lack of charisma. Reprinted from Celebitchy.

Tom Sykes at the Daily Beast ? he?s their Royalist guy ? had a very, very interesting piece about Buckingham Palace?s new ?Magnificent Seven? branding. The first time I heard that name for the seven royal figures was in conjunction with their thrown-together Commonwealth Day BBC special. The Magnificent Seven are: QEII, Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the Earl and Countess of Wessex and Princess Anne. They?re all being trotted out for the pre-Commonwealth Day thing to compete with the Sussexes? Oprah interview. We?ve heard before about Buckingham Palace?s scramble to try to rebrand the working Windsors following the Duke and Duchess of Sussex?s exit, but the problem has always been that the remaining working royals are dull and free of charisma. They desperately needed Meghan and Harry?s sparkle and glamour. Sykes? point ? and he uses quotes from other people to make that point ? is that the Sussexit represented the monarchy?s fundamental inability to modernize, and that inability will lead to their demise. Some highlights:

The British monarchy ?is a patient that is sick and has long been getting sicker.? The arrival of Harry and Meghan on the scene promised a dusting of humanity and glitter to distract the punters from the essential absurdity of a 21st-century monarchy, not to mention its irrelevance to their lives. Their untimely departure has only served, however, to reveal the royal establishment?s dire, possibly terminal, condition in an even starker light. Senior courtiers? and aides? answer to this, so far, seems to be that they will throw the other royals at the problem.

The stupidity of the ?Magnificent Seven? branding: Critics would say it?s harder to think of a paler and staler representation of Britishness. And it?s not entirely clear whether William and Kate fancy the rest of their lives being a never-ending treadmill of opening civic centers and gyms. They have long been criticized for their lowly work rate, which tends to hover at around 150 public engagements per annum (this sounds quite a bit, until you factor in that they?ll often do three or even four engagements on one day).

Crisis management: Mark Borkowski, the British crisis management veteran who has a longstanding fascination with the branding of the royals, told The Daily Beast that the departure of Harry and Meghan need so be seen in the context of ?the bigger question? which is what happens when the queen dies. When things have gone wrong for the royals in the past, he pointed out, it has always been the queen who has ?put everything back on track.? Charles, who is not held in the same affection or respect, won?t be able to do that as easily.

Young people don?t care about the Windsors: Borkowski also says, ?The William and Harry project was shaping up to be something that was presenting royals in a touchy feely way. Harry and Meghan?s departure accelerates, to a young and mobile audience, the impression that the monarchy cannot truly modernize.? Borkowski does not see the monarchy, which has ?an inbuilt ability to protect itself? falling, but he said it risks becoming a ?heritage brand.? Meghan and Harry?s departure should be ?a wake-up call? to the monarchy to start thinking how it can stay relevant. It is time to start thinking about the future again, and, he suggested, ?the future is Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis.?

Robert Lacey agrees that the monarchy is in significant danger: ?We have already seen a coming to the fore of not just Prince George but of all the Cambridge children. Two years ago, I suspect that William and Catherine would never have foreseen their children being interviewed on television at such a tender age, albeit in the context of a friendly chat with ?Uncle? David Attenborough. They probably would not have imagined putting their children on Instagram either, but needs must?. Prince Charles? vision of the slimmed-down monarchy depended on his two sons with their wives and families providing the twin pillars of the monarchy?to the exclusion of the various Kents and Gloucesters and Yorks. The departure of Harry and Meghan has left a big gap to fill.?

The commonwealth day has been celebrated for ages. Covid19 changed it for this year.

The 8th is monday, the 7th it is. It's on the commonwealth website, wikipedia, uk gov site...

The Sussex were there at W abbey last year, early March. They aren't working royals.

They are the ones competing for air time. Just like the cemetery shoot.

I expect Harry and Meghan to invent something for the press come April 29...

The sentence about the Sussexes competing for airtime with the Commonwealth Day service made me laugh. I can absolutely guarantee that about one British person in ten thousand, if that, will be sitting down to watch various members of the RF say things about the Commonwealth in pre recorded messages for nearly two hours.

That service is not exactly exciting TV at the best of times when it's live, and Britons in general aren't in love with the idea of the Commonwealth. Heck, I LIVE in a Commonwealth country and I've honestly never met anyone here who even mentions the Service, and the same when I lived in England!

Not exiting. The Sussex's have been doing it, don't think they will stop using the same dates as the per usual yearly BRF (yearly) events.

According to UK YouGov continuation.

The trio DOY, DDOS have negative numbers no matter the question.  The End

The future of the BRF after the departure of the Sussexes and DoY.

Very bright indeed.

Ipso-Mori poll on the British Monarchy taken in early March 2021 and results released on March 8, 2021.

QuoteTechnical note:

Ipsos MORI interviewed a representative sample of 1,065 adults aged 18-75 in Great Britain. Interviews were conducted on Ipsos MORI?s online omnibus between 3rd and 4th March 2021. Data has been weighted to the known offline population proportions for age, working status and social grade within gender and for government office region and education.  All polls are subject to a wide range of potential sources of error.
The author(s)

    Kelly Beaver Managing Director, Public Affairs

Royal Family makes the UK appear traditional and powerful | Ipsos MORI (https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/royal-family-makes-uk-appear-traditional-and-powerful)

QuoteA new online poll by Ipsos MORI shows that the Royal Family is most likely to make Britons think of the UK as a traditional and powerful country. Six in ten (59%) say they associate being traditional more with the UK due to the monarchy, similar to the score of 62% in 2018, while 3 in 10 (28%) are more likely to view it as powerful, up from 20% three years ago.

One in five (19%) say the Royal Family is associated with seeing the UK as an unequal society, while one in twenty (5%) say it is associated with viewing the UK as an equal society. Britons are slightly more likely to say the Royal Family helps the UK to appear democratic (14%) than undemocratic (10%). When considering whether the monarchy make the country seem inward or outward-looking, opinion is split with one in ten (9%) associating it with each option.

QuoteWho is the nation?s favourite member of the Royal Family?

Queen Elizabeth II remains a popular member of the Royal Family. Forty per cent select the Queen as one of their most liked, an increase from 32% in 2018. Prince William is second, with 3 in 10 (32%) Britons rating him as a favourite, followed by his wife, the Duchess of Cambridge, on 29%. Prince Harry is fourth-most popular on 24%, a sharp fall from his score of 42% in 2018. His wife, the Duchess of Sussex, is one of the favourites of 13% of Britons, similar to her score of 14% in 2018.

Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, is the most popular of the Queen?s children with 17% (up 7 points since 2018). Prince Charles is one of the most liked for 13% (up 4) while 5% chose Prince Edward and 2% Prince Andrew.

QuoteHow interesting are the Royals?

Despite an increase since 2018, opinion is split when it comes to levels of interest in the Royal Family. Half (51%) say they are interested in hearing news about the monarchy, up from 45% three years ago. However, a similar proportion are less interested (48%), including one in five (20%) who are not interested at all. Interest is significantly higher among women (58% vs. 44% of men).

QuoteWould abolition be good or bad for Britain?

More Britons say the abolition of the monarchy would make Britain?s future worse (43%) than make it better (17%) ? one in three (34%) think it would make little difference. This remains largely unchanged since the question was last asked in 2018 when 46% said abolition would have a negative impact compared with 15% who believed it would be an improvement. Young people are the most indifferent (45% of 18-34 year olds think abolition would make little difference), but still more believe losing the monarchy would make things worse for Britain in the future than better (by 29% to 19%).

TLLK, I didn?t know where to post this and I?ve probably chosen the wrong thread. Could you please possibly move it to the correct place if so?

Ipsos Mori poll on how the monarchy is regarded in Britain now in 2021, plus individual polling. Interesting polling for Harry considering he?s regarded by other posters as being universally hated in the UK. Even more interesting ref Camilla.

Royal Family makes the UK appear traditional and powerful | Ipsos MORI (https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/royal-family-makes-uk-appear-traditional-and-powerful)

By the way,  I have bought a new wonderful iPad! No more struggles!

@Curryong-Congrats on the new device!

I'm going to just go and change the title of the thread to incorporate the Ipso-MORI poll. Oh the power of the moderator modify button!!! :windsor1:

Harry?s popularity has improved since the last YouGov poll. This one was taken some days ago.

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's popularity IMPROVES - bombshell Megxit poll | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1405563/meghan-markle-prince-harry-popularity-improves-poll-megxit-royal-news)

Harry and Meghans net favourability ratings have fallen to their lowest ever levels following the Oprah interview

Prince Harry: -3 (15 point drop)
Meghan: -27 (13 point drop)


The only other royal whose net favourability rating has been affected much by the Harry/Meghan interview is Prince Charles

The Queen: +66 (+1)
William: +60 (-5)
Kate: +57 (n/c)
Charles: +7 (-14)
Camilla: -7 (-2)

18-24yr olds would now prefer an elected head of state by 42 to 37 percent (although please note this is within the margin of error). Support for Britain having a monarchy remains strong across all other age groups

Public opinion of Harry and Meghan falls to new low after Oprah interview | YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/03/12/public-opinion-harry-and-meghan-falls-new-low-afte?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=royal_family_favourability)

Good news for the UK citizens.

Well the millionaires did whine about being financially cut off and the interview was done during a pandemic does seem a bit self-serving and self absorbed.   :shrug:

Interesting poll here conducted by @YouGov for
@timesredbox which shows that if the public could choose anyone currently living to be Britains elected head of state, Prince William the Duke of Cambridge would be their first choice!

https://twitter.com/theRumble9/status/1372181683391303680?s=20

He is better liked than any politician.

Now here's the view from "across the pond" when it comes to the favorite members of the BRF.

Top of the list...the late Diana, Princess of Wales.  :Jen: followed by QEII, William, Catherine, Harry, Anne, Phillip, Meghan, Edward, Charles, Andrew and then Camilla.

https://mobile.twitter.com/USA_Polling/status/1372371577485066240- Click on the link for the necessary info.

QuoteDiana: +56%
Queen Elizabeth: +42%
William: +34%
Kate: +33%
Harry: +28%
Ann: +23%
Phillip: +18%
Meghan: +15%
Edward: +14%
Charles: -12%
Andrew: -14%
Camilla: -18%

Interesting William and Catherine are higher than Meghan and Harry even in America.

Unfortunately the link appears to be no longer working but I'd like to add that this was from YouGov US.

^

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/bajzsg3506/econTabReport.pdf

The poll was requested by the political newspaper and magazine The Economist. The above link is the pdf file from TLLK's twitter official verified link of Polling USA.  The poll is very extensive, as it also surveys politicians in the USA, including their latest scandal New York Governor Cuomo.  In the segment of political affiliation or like, the middle ground central liberalism did the swing for Joe Biden, like last minute.

No surprise with William and Kate, as democratic, central or republican like ''social capitalism' meaning money. Source: same poll, segment capital moneys/capitalism, the only landslide in favour by all races in the USA, mainly White, Black and Hispanic.  Harry and Meghan's image has the tendency with Joe, encouraged to vote indirectly for Joe - and as everyone knows the presidential elections was very much dived in 2 with a few thousands towards Joe in almost every state. There weren't any landslide victory. So the poll reflects that, except the critics in the twitter feed are angry of why put a deceased person: Diana.

@wannanble-Thank you for finding this information.

New article with a  poll from IPSO-Mori for Canada on the monarchy.

Canadians back Meghan Markle, want no role for Royal Family in Canada: poll - National | Globalnews.ca (https://globalnews.ca/news/7704854/royal-family-canada-queen-meghan-markle-role/)

QuoteFifty-eight per cent of Canadians agreed that the Royal Family treated Markle unfairly because of her race, according to the poll. Women and people between the ages of 18 and 34 were more likely to agree, but a majority of respondents supported the notion across every demographic. Black respondents were most likely to support the notion at 98 per cent.

Eight in 10 people said that Harry and Markle made the right decision to leave the Royal Family last year, according to the poll.

Ipsos also saw an uptick in support for ending the Royal Family?s formal role in Canada, continuing a trend of rising support for that notion since 2016. Two in three Canadians, or 66 per cent of respondents, said the Queen and the royals should not have any formal role in Canadian society, as they are ?simply celebrities and nothing more.? That?s up two per cent over last year and six per cent since 2016, Ipsos says.

Roughly six in 10 people said the relationship between Canada and the monarchy should end when the Queen dies, although only about half of Canadians (53 per cent) supported the idea of a referendum on the monarchy, according to the poll. Nearly eight in 10 Canadians felt the Queen has done a good job in her role.

Majority of Canadians (58%) Believe Royal Family Treated Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, Unfairly Because of Her Race | Ipsos (https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/majority-of-canadians-believe-royal-family-treated-meghan-unfairly-because-of-her-race)

Heres the thing in Canada. Politicians who otherwise are probably republican, outright support the monarchy in Canada.

When Justin Trudeau of the Liberal party was elected he went out of his way to praise the Queen. He gave a huge welcome to William and Catherine during their tour.

Because of separatist Quebec, almost all federal politicians support monarchy.

Monarchy is the official position of both the Liberal and Conservative parties of Canada.

@PrincessOfPeace - Do you believe that ultimately Canadians and their elected leaders will likely keep the monarchy when Charles' reign begins?

I do.  Canada has a complicated constitution and its very difficult to amend. We tried it twice in my lifetime and failed (not monarchy related).

Unless the population is storming parliament with pitchforks there is zero interest by politicians in going down the republican road.

@PrincessOfPeace -Thank you. I suspected it just might be one of those "not worth the effort" situations that have both major parties opting to not raise the idea of a referendum.

Every thing would have to change - right down to the names of the highways.  It would be so expensive.  And quite frankly many Canadians aren?t even aware we have a Monarch of Canada.  Removing it wouldn?t make a bit of difference but cause major headaches to change the constitution.
And trying to make a green MP from BC agree with a big C conservative financier from TO or a Quebecois agree with a Buddy from Newfoundland is like herding cats.  All it takes is one Native MLA to raise a feather to derail the whole thing.( I am referring to Elijah Harper and Meech Lake Accord- a very interesting period of Canadian politics)

Father..

Canadians should realise when they are well off under the Monarchy. For the vast majority of Canadians, being a Monarchy is probably the only form of government acceptable to them. I have always been for parliamentary democracy and I think the institution of Monarchy with the Queen heading it all has served Canada well.

-  PM Pierre Elliott Trudeau

Son..

The Queen was, of course, gracious and insightful, with a unique and invaluable perspective... Her Majesty has been an important part of Canadas history and Im confident will remain an important part of our continued progress and our future.

- PM Justin Trudeau

 :happycanada: Thank you ladies and I truly appreciate your insight into the matter.

A Savanta ComRes poll on all things royal in tomorrows Daily Express.  Read about how the British public have rallied around the Queen and the Cambridges and dont want Harry and Meghan to come back to the UK.

- Richard Palmer.

https://twitter.com/RoyalReporter/status/1373051100782297098?s=20

@PrincessOfPeace Where are you located?  I am sure you told me but I forget. 

I?m mid Ontario. 

I live in Nova Scotia.

Pretty!  Can?t wait for all this to be over and be able to travel there again.   I?ve been all over Cape Breton, Halifax area and around Springhill but I have never made it down to Lunenburg and around.  Some day!

Poll taken in Canada by Ipsos shows that 58% of Canadians back Meghan and believe that she was treated unfairly by the BRF. The anti-monarchical slide seen for the past five or so years in Canada seems to have continued as well.

Canadians back Meghan Markle, want no role for Royal Family in Canada: poll - National | Globalnews.ca (https://globalnews.ca/news/7704854/royal-family-canada-queen-meghan-markle-role/)

As with Australia and other realms there may well be a reappraisal of the Crown?s role in Canada after the Queen?s death.

 :happycanada: :happyusa: Can't wait to begin traveling again. I've been mostly to the western provinces of BC and Alberta over the decades and my husband and I honeymooned in your gorgeous western national parks. Would love to visit the eastern provinces too one day.

@PrincessOfPeace and @Macrobug67 - Again thank you for sharing your insights as to why a referendum on the monarchy might not be sponsored by either of the two major parties now and in the near future. Hadn't considered the cost involved in anything beyond advertising, but you are correct this would involve  a huge change that the nation might not want to consider as they like the rest of the world recover from the economic impact of 2020.

From Richard Palmer:

Prince Harry must be the first to apologise to the Queen for his bombshell claims about the Royal Family, an exclusive poll has found.

An exclusive Daily Express poll also found that most people dismissed the Sussexes claims of racism and want the pair to stay in the US. The Savanta ComRes survey for the Daily Express uncovered evidence that Harry a national hero after two tours of duty in Afghanistan and Meghan, who was initially popular, have burnt their bridges with the nation.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1412429/Prince-harry-news-queen-latest-royal-family-meghan-markle-interview-poll-latest/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Why would the names of highways and roads have to change? There are a ton of historical buildings,monuments and streets all over the old Empire in what are now republics within the Commonwealth referencing the names of former monarchs. Even in the US there are States and towns/cities named after Kings and Queens, there is a thread here devoted to them.

Of course, no-one is denying that changing from a monarchy to a republic will be an extremely expensive process. Because of COVID it isn?t likely to happen within the next few years. However, I?ve no doubt it will happen in Charles?s reign and that the death of the Queen, a very long-lived sovereign will more immediately focus many of the realms on their future course.

And, in the matter of expense, if countries like Pakistan and India, states much less wealthy than the present realms could change over to republics there?s no reason why NZ (which has already been a whisper away from it several times in the last few years) Canada and Aus can?t do the same.

---

Double post auto-merged: March 20, 2021, 09:09:31 PM

---

Hello, newsflash?- Harry and Meghan don?t want to come back to royal duties in the UK and made that clear more than a year ago. I love the way the London tabloids slant it that Harry and Meghan are begging the British people to let them return for good and Britons are more or less banning them, lol!

By the way, Another dodgy poll by the Express again I see, conducted by a small lesser known polling company. A friend managed to vote in one of the almost daily polls organised by that particular paper multiple times, just out of curiosity!

Unlike Australia, no politicians in Canada talk about removing the monarchy. We have never had a referendum on the matter.

The unique politics of Canada prevents discussion on becoming a republic.

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on March 20, 2021, 09:10:53 PM
Unlike Australia, no politicians in Canada talk about removing the monarchy. We have never had a referendum on the matter.

The unique politics of Canada prevents discussion on becoming a republic.

So the solution is to just wait until the Crown just becomes more and more irrelevant to people?s lives as it is generally in Britain, though at least there it is native to the country?  Just wait until that slide against the Crown of Canada escalates in the next reign. Politicians all listen to their constituencies in the end. I?m aware of the constitutional arrangements in Canada, having had friends from there. It?s incredibly difficult in Australia as well, per our Constitution. But everything ends some time, and so will the realms.

Justin Trudeau is the most progressive PM in Canadian history and he openly supported Charles as the next head of the commonwealth.

We dont know the future but id be very surprised to see a leader from either of Canada's two biggest political parties going down the republican road.

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on March 20, 2021, 09:23:28 PM
Justin Trudeau is the most progressive PM in Canadian history and he openly supported Charles as the next head of the commonwealth.

We dont know the future but id be very surprised to see a leader from either of Canada's two biggest political parties going down the republican road.

All the Commonwealth leaders supported Charles as the next Ceremonial Head. It was regarded here and in the British broadsheets as an act of loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II following discussions at Windsor and no doubt a private appeal by the Queen, not as an outburst of enthusiasm for Charles in the role.

No-one knows what the future brings. However there has been no upswing in Canadian polling in favour of the monarchy in Canada in the past five years and in some polling I remember, even longer. I would say that the sweep of history is against any reversing of the tide, and once other realms go, we shall see....

Quote from: TLLK on March 20, 2021, 08:44:32 PM
:happycanada: :happyusa: Can't wait to begin traveling again. I've been mostly to the western provinces of BC and Alberta over the decades and my husband and I honeymooned in your gorgeous western national parks. Would love to visit the eastern provinces too one day.

@PrincessOfPeace and @Macrobug67 - Again thank you for sharing your insights as to why a referendum on the monarchy might not be sponsored by either of the two major parties now and in the near future. Hadn't considered the cost involved in anything beyond advertising, but you are correct this would involve  a huge change that the nation might not want to consider as they like the rest of the world recover from the economic impact of 2020.

When you make it to Ontario, there is a place to stay for a few days!

Prince William and David Attenborough most popular choices for head of state if monarchy abolished, poll finds | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/prince-william-head-of-state-poll-queen-b1818555.html)

QuotePrince William and broadcaster David Attenborough have been voted the most popular choices for Britain?s head of state, according to a new poll.

The poll, carried out by YouGov for The Times? Red Box political newsletter, asked respondents who they would choose as an elected head of state instead of the Queen.

The question in the survey read: ?If you could pick anyone currently living to be Britain?s elected head of state, who would it be??

Of the 1,680 people who responded to the survey, 12 per cent voted for Prince William, followed by David Attenborough with 9 per cent and the Queen with 7 per cent.

"Me" comes in at number 4.   :thumbsup:

Well I guess this is one of the few times that someone would not have to worry about "quitting their day job" because it appears that William is still considered to be a favorite as an elected Head of State. Other royals on the list in the order that they follow Prince William and QEII: PoW, DoS, DssoCam and PR.  :windsor1:

Prince Philip?s death reminds us that the future of the monarchy is far from assured - Prospect Magazine (https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/society-and-culture/prince-philip-future-of-monarchy-queen-royal-family)

By Alexander Larman


The Duke was a skilled practitioner with a devotion to public service. His passing leaves a cherished institution more exposed than ever

QuoteYet once that event has passed, with its attendant cascades of mawkish sentimentality, a question will be asked out loud that has only been whispered in recent years. The British monarchy has often seemed to be an ever-fix?d mark, occasionally buffeted and worried by the scourges of fashion and opinion, but never seriously challenged. Its longevity and popularity owe as much to a tightly run public relations department and an unwavering focus by the Mountbatten-Windsor clan on a simple narrative, attractively told, as it does to any genuine sense of royalist fervour in the hearts of its subjects.

This is a testament to its practitioners and above all its patriarch, who might have walked his allotted number of paces behind the Queen in his role as consort, but led the way elsewhere. Prince Philip was as responsible for the modern-day Royal Family as anyone else. Not bad for a man who once called himself ?a discredited Balkan prince of no particular merit or distinction.? It was he who epitomised the unofficial family motto ?never complain, never explain,? seeking to instil it in both his children and grandchildren. It is a motto that has been tested to destruction (though in very varied ways), firstly by his daughter-in-law Diana, then by his son Prince Andrew, and now, perhaps most notoriously of all, by his grandson Harry and his wife Meghan.

Yet none of them have posed an existential threat to the continued existence of the monarchy. This is because the popularity of the institution remains greater than that of any of its individual members, with the exception of the monarch herself. But the newly widowed Queen is a 94-year-old woman. She cannot live forever, even if some sentimental and patriotic elements might wish her to. And when she dies, the question of whether republicanism in Britain could succeed will be raised again.

Snip

Yet the long-term future of the monarchy remains uncertain. Opinion polls asking whether the public would prefer Prince Charles or Prince William to inherit the throne usually suggest a preference for the latter, often a decisive one.

Courtiers believe that the moment of maximum danger for the monarchy will come during the vacuum between the death of Elizabeth II and the coronation of her son, when mischief-makers might make their voices heard. While there has been no serious suggestion that Brian, as Private Eye irreverently dubs Charles, is likely to follow in the footsteps of his great-uncle Edward VIII and abdicate in favour of his son, he and those around him are aware that he lacks both his mother?s popularity and his father?s ability to maintain the status quo with energy and determination, naysayers be damned.

Snip

Now is not a time for recrimination or for criticism. Much-publicised feuds within the Royal Family will now be ostentatiously suspended, and fond stories of Prince Philip will dominate the news cycle for days now. Earth, receive an honoured guest. But his tough, domineering absence from the Firm will undoubtedly be felt over the coming years. It is hard not to suspect that the Royal Family has lost perhaps its most able and energetic advocate, and that its continued existence is now slightly less certain.

What do others think?   Will the death of PP create a crisis for the monarchy?  Has he been the linchpin all along?  Will this be the opportunity that the Republicans have been waiting for?

IMO the biggest threat to the European monarchies is indifference. However are citizens willing to scrap it all in favor of a republic. At this point in time, I believe that the UK will remain a monarchy but the difficult time might come with Charles and or William when their reigns begin.

At the risk of repeating myself as whenever this subject has come up I?ve posted my conviction that it will be after Queen Elizabeth?s death when we see serious questions in Britain about the monarchy?s future. That will be inevitable after such a long reign.

I don?t believe that Philip has been the lynchpin constitutionally, and he has after all been retired from public life for several years. It was as head of his family privately that his greatest influence lay, for better or for worse.

However, he was the Queen?s consort for a very long time and it?s notable that the first of such articles are being written immediately after his death. Everybody knows and has known for some years that the sovereign is a woman in her 90s, getting noticeably more frail and won?t last for ever. However, while Philip lived there was a sense that the Queen?s reign would continue on and on  into the future. Prince Philip?s death has been an instructive blow, like a cold shower,  to such illusions.

I don?t believe, as I?ve always said, that people will immediately turn away from having a monarchy when Charles becomes King. However, it is a fact that Charles is not as popular as his mother or his son and therefore we may well see a dip in its popularity in the early part of his reign.

That will be especially true among the young, and among the realms. IMO the realms have remained for as long as they have largely because of respect for the Queen and the knowledge of her devotion to the Commonwealth. There?s no sense here in Oz for example, that in spite of Charles?s much vaunted love for Australia that people have the same feelings for him as they have for his mother. .

Quote from: Curryong on April 12, 2021, 01:33:52 AM

However, he was the Queen?s consort for a very long time and it?s notable that the first of such articles are being written immediately after his death. Everybody knows and has known for some years that the sovereign is a woman in her 90s, getting noticeably more frail and won?t last for ever. However, while Philip lived there was a sense that the Queen?s reign would continue on and on  into the future. Prince Philip?s death has been an instructive blow, like a cold shower,  to such illusions.

I think you nailed it.  His death has shattered illusions of immortality and made us face the reality that she is 94 years old.  She will be gone in the next decade.  There are very few people alive who remember any other monarch on the British throne and those who do will be gone soon themselves.

Quote from: TLLK on April 12, 2021, 01:26:55 AM
IMO the biggest threat to the European monarchies is indifference. However are citizens willing to scrap it all in favor of a republic. At this point in time, I believe that the UK will remain a monarchy but the difficult time might come with Charles and or William when their reigns begin.

Is her popularity because she is a fixture and she looks like everyone?s Sweet Little Granny.   I wonder how many people even know what the role of monarch really even means, especially when there is talk of eliminating it.  Who do they think is going to replace the role?  Elected?  How would that work when it is a role that needs to be apolitical. 

Quoteowever, he was the Queen?s consort for a very long time and it?s notable that the first of such articles are being written immediately after his death. Everybody knows and has known for some years that the sovereign is a woman in her 90s, getting noticeably more frail and won?t last for ever. However, while Philip lived there was a sense that the Queen?s reign would continue on and on  into the future. Prince Philip?s death has been an instructive blow, like a cold shower,  to such illusions.

You do bring up a very good point @Curryong. The two of you have always lived in nations that are constitutional monarchies and I'm guessing that Elizabeth II is the only monarch that you've known. If the change is coming, I do expect it will be at the end of QEII's reign for the Commonwealth nations that have retained the British monarch as their head of state.

My great grandmother was a great admirer of QE.  Here we are, I?m in my 50s, and she still is queen.  She has been a mainstay to generations

Quote from: TLLK on April 12, 2021, 01:26:55 AM
IMO the biggest threat to the European monarchies is indifference. However are citizens willing to scrap it all in favor of a republic. At this point in time, I believe that the UK will remain a monarchy but the difficult time might come with Charles and or William when their reigns begin.

I think indifference works in monarchys favour. Here in Canada, we are not revolutionaries. To go through all the trouble and replace a king or queen with a president isnt worth the time and effort for most Canadians. The subject would open up a constitutional can of worms and the outcome would be far from certain.

There are pllenty of presidents who are ceremonial and non political.....

Quote

The Spectator
Should we fear for the future of the monarchy?
From magazine issue: 17 April 2021

This is not to say that republics cannot also be stable democracies; the United States, for example, has amply demonstrated that it has the institutions and customs to keep its leaders in their place. But there is a beauty in having guards against the misuse of power baked into the system. Whatever the skulduggery that goes on at one end of the Mall, at the other we can be sure of the enduring soft power of the monarchy...

A smaller working royal family has, indeed, been mooted for some time. The present one will function perfectly well...

Should we fear for the future of the monarchy? | The Spectator (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/should-we-fear-for-the-future-of-the-monarchy)

The article is great, basically no fear.

Quote from: wannable on April 16, 2021, 08:45:48 PM
Should we fear for the future of the monarchy? | The Spectator (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/should-we-fear-for-the-future-of-the-monarchy)

The article is great, basically no fear.

Why is the article great? Because it attacks the Sussexes and lauds the monarchy? The Spectator is a very old journal, many of its contributors are on the conservative and pro monarchist side. I?ve always said that while the Queen lives things will stay as they are. When it?s Charles?s reign and future reigns the tide is likely to recede. History is not likely to be on the side of monarchies as the 21st century goes on and that will be just the way it will be. Charles does not have one half of the respect and gravitas that the Queen holds in Britain and throughout the Commonwealth.

And a contrasting view about Megxit from a respected contributor in the same magazine in February this year.

The monarchy failed Harry and Meghan | The Spectator (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-monarchy-failed-meghan-and-harry)

Quote from: wannable on April 16, 2021, 08:45:48 PM
Should we fear for the future of the monarchy? | The Spectator (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/should-we-fear-for-the-future-of-the-monarchy)

The article is great, basically no fear.

I felt that the final paragraph summed up the article well in that the monarchy is bigger than any individual.

QuoteThe Duke?s death has left the nation without a great servant and a character who could enliven the dreariest of occasions. But the monarchy is bigger than any monarch or member of their family. The Duke?s personal longevity stands as a symbol of the system itself.

It was a good article.  And I agree. The monarchy will survive.  There is the occasional grumble from republicans.  Yes, monarchy is an odd and quaint institution in this day and age.  But it is one that has a very British flair.  People may disagree but we can't escape the fact that for many The Queen = Britain.  I think that Charles will adapt well.  It isn't going to be the same but he wouldn't be the first slightly boring monarch following a wildly popular one.

Royal summit to decide future of monarchy to be led by Prince Charles and Prince William.  From The Telegraph.

*The Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge will hold a summit to decide the future of the monarchy over the next two generations following the death of the Duke of Edinburgh.

In consultation with the Queen, Britains next two kings will decide how many full-time working members the Royal family should have, who they should be, and what they should do.

Because any decisions made now will have repercussions for decades to come, the Prince of Wales will take a leading role in the talks. He has made it clear that the Duke of Cambridge, his own heir, should be involved at every stage because any major decisions taken by 72-year-old Prince Charles will last into Prince Williams reign.*

Read more: https://archive.ph/pSI1n

That is a rather interesting bit of news.  Will they end up having to bring in the York daughters.  Andrew would LOVE that.

The Yorks would be effective in a part-time capacity imo.

I think Lady Louise Windsor has a lot of potential.

I do too but she is 17.  She needs to finish school then get to decide what SHE wants.  She has been brought up as a daughter of a Earl, not as a future senior Royal.  She may have plans that don?t include Royal duties at all.  But if she does, I think she could be a dynamo.

If this report is correct I believe that first of all will come decisions over the literally hundreds of patronages and charities connected to Prince Philip, including military ones. The Queen is 95 and her patronage?s/charities also number in the hundreds.

The future of all these has to be taken into account.  IMO most of them will be shed, leaving only the most important ones under some sort of umbrella Foundation. I believe this would have happened even if Andrew and the Sussexes had still been working royals. The younger members of the family just can?t and won?t take on hundreds of mainly minor charities any more.

If this encompasses the two reigns then there will no doubt IMO be discussions about who will be fulltime working royals in say another thirty years. Princess Anne, the Queen?s cousins, even the Wessexes might no longer be around. I believe the question of royal ?spares? will be discussed, and that will impact Charlotte and Louis. I believe and think that they will be given the option when they are in their teens of future careers in the outside world.

This will be because, (and this is directly due to what has happened with the Sussexes leaving and Andrew being dropped,) that a sleeker leaner BRF is what will be proposed. It may even be cut to the bone in William?s reign with just the King, Consort, heir and wife. That is in line with many Continental monarchies, and the titles of spares will always go into abeyance as well. Jmo.

Just to finish off, I can see the titles of the children of male indirect heirs going, so no more Princesses Beatrices and Princess Eugenies. Spares will in the future, I believe, be encouraged to take up life long careers, and the children of Louis and subsequent spares will not be titled.

I can?t see Charles adding anyone to the payroll as working royals, as the charities become severely culled. There won?t be any need for it and Princess Anne, the Wessexes and the Gloucesters will continue as working royals for the forseeable future.

Eugenie has husband, baby and full time job. Beatrice will likely be starting a family soon. Both have their own charities. Why would either want to be full time royals with all the constraints the role entails?  Nor do I think the Wessex children will have anything other than full time careers.

Forgot to add that Andrew?s charities and patronages are probably going to be reassigned/dropped in the next few months. His military patronages like the Grenadier Guards hon Colonelcy will probably go to a retired senior officer of their own.

I definitely think titles will be part of the discussion.

From the Telegraph article on the subject of the Way Ahead meeting supposed to be coming in the next few weeks, with regard to engagements, patronages and so on...

?Royal sources explained that the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge, with the help of the Queen, would now have to decide whether the monarchy should continue with its traditional model of thousands of engagements each year, spread out between a broad base of full-time and part-time working royals, or cut down the number of engagements and patronages and use fewer members of the family to fulfil them.?

?One source said: ?The question is whether you start off by deciding how many patronages and engagements there should be, and then work out how many people are needed to achieve them, or whether you decide how many people there should be, which will dictate how many engagements and patronages they can take on.??

I think that they should take a serious look at the way Kate and Will are doing things.  Small amount of charities but very well thought out, interconnected and more involved. 

Do they need to be patrons of thousands of charities and do nothing with them?   As busy as Anne is, is what she does - opening things, snipping ribbons etc - the way of the future royals. 

I think quality not quantity is the way to go from now on.

I agree. Before he retired Prince Philip had over 800 charities, patronages, only a few dozen of which have been re-distributed since. The Queen has even more. For both of them many of these haven?t been visited for years, and merely constitute a reference on a charity letterhead. Andrew similarly has dozens of charities swinging in the breeze.

The fact of the matter is that within a very few years the Queen will be gone, as will the Kents.

Anne is likely to carry on into her nineties like her mother but good health in one?s seventies and eighties isn?t guaranteed. And the same goes for Charles and especially for Camilla.

Two into one doesn?t go. Nor do thousands of engagements go into the schedules of the Wessexes and Cambridges (Charles and Anne already have full timetables) and something will have to give.

If it?s family time (and the Wessexes and Cambridges have young children at school and in Louis?s case younger) then that will be very unfortunate. Charles already knows how being a workaholic impacted his time with his teenage sons. IMO it seems almost inevitable that all but the major charities will have to be jettisoned.

I remember reading that Leti made it very clear that when she became Queen Consort that she was not going to be a ribbon cutter.  And she has focused in on meaty, significant activities.  Likewise Queen Silva with her children charity.  As much as it is nice for the local flower show to have a Royal show up, that?s a thing of the past.   It goes along with what society expects from the royals - basically good quality for the money.

Very many of the charities in question are local and regional and I think being pragmatic they will have to be let go.

The larger nation wide organisations along with military patronages will be redistributed. 

Charles and William have many smart people around them and along with the Queens input will make the right decisions imo.

I think Charles is a smart cookie and William has the advantage of a younger view.  And Catherine.   I fully believe she has some excellent ideas. 

I remember watching a documentary on Prince Philip a few years back. Maybe for his 90th birthday.

Anyway there was a segment on patronages and Philip said every organisation is different in their wants and needs.

He said some of his charities just want a name on a letterhead. A local Yacht club he is patron of meets with him for one hour every year. Examples like that. 

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 19, 2021, 01:59:26 AM
I remember watching a documentary on Prince Philip a few years back. Maybe for his 90th birthday.

Anyway there was a segment on patronages and Philip said every organisation is different in their wants and needs.

He said some of his charities just want a name on a letterhead. A local Yacht club he is patron of meets with him for one hour every year. Examples like that. 

That might be so. However, after his children became adults and while the Kents were still quite healthy and active there was a team of up to 15 people (especially after his older sons married and people like Diana tackled more and more causes.) Margaret continued her role until her final illness, for instance.

Here and now, Prss Alexanra of Kent is more or less retired. She hasn?t undertaken engagements for some time. The Duke of Kent intimated some time ago that he will continue with engagements so long as the Queen does so (and his health holds out.) That speaks to about five more years at the most. His wife withdrew from working royal life quite some time ago.

The Gloucesters are now in their seventies. The Duke is older than Charles. And like I said, good health isn?t guaranteed into one?s old age. The same with Anne. Will she still be able to undertake over 500 engagements a year in another ten years?

Charles remains fit, as do the Wessexes who are in their late fifties. However there has always been a question mark over Camilla?s energy and overall constitution.

With two couples under seventy years of age even one hour at a local yacht club means one hour less of family life. The Queen and Duke due to circumstances and background were OK with leaving their children for months at a time on Commonwealth and other tours.

There?s no indication that the two working couples who still have children at home now, feel the same way about such things. Which is why I say and feel that the important charities will probably be telescoped in future into a couple of Royal Foundations and the rest of the organisations will have to find other sponsorship.

Interesting, I wonder if it will be shrunk to the sovereign and the heir. Following the European monarchies. Lately, because of the pandemic, the UK billionaires club, as stated in March 2020 placed their moneys to William and Catherine's royal foundation, trusting the couple would place the moneys where more needed. William has also encouraged communities to discuss their own priorities to then fix whatever needs to be fixed. The Telegraph concludes with his vision which matches with his actions during the past 3.5 years.

Quote
Prince Edward and Prince Charles saw the largest boost in positive opinion, while Harry and Meghan are the only royals who did not see a favourable uptick
The latest YouGov royal favourability figures show that most royals have seen a boost in their reputations since our previous survey in mid-March.

Prince Edward, the youngest child of the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh, has seen the largest increase in positive opinion, rising from 41% of Britons in March to 54%. Negative opinion fell from 26% to 19%.

27th April, everything else remains the same as the previous to this latest survey.
Public opinion of most senior royals improves | YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/04/27/public-opinion-most-senior-royals-improves)

More details from the survey with big increase as noted for Charles and Edward. Anne is also seen favorable by the majority of those polled. Andrew has the lowest ratings of any member of the BRF. Even Camilla has seen a bit of an uptick since March. (Full results are in the link posted by @wannable )

QuoteThe latest YouGov royal favourability figures show that most royals have seen a boost in their reputations since our previous survey in mid-March.

Prince Edward, the youngest child of the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh, has seen the largest increase in positive opinion, rising from 41% of Britons in March to 54%. Negative opinion fell from 26% to 19%.

Prince Charles also saw a nine point increase in favourable opinion, with 58% of the public now having a positive view of him. The share of Britons who dislike him has fallen by an identical nine points to 33%.

This represents a return to form for Prince Charles, whose positive ratings had dropped eight points to 49% between 2 March and 11 March, when Harry and Meghan spoke about their fallout with the Royal Family in an interview with Oprah Winfrey.

QuotePrincess Anne, the Queen and Prince Philip?s second child, also saw her ratings improve, with seven in ten (70%) Britons now saying they like her, up from 64%.

Some 85% of the public now have a positive opinion of Queen Elizabeth II, who remains the most popular royal, up from 80%. Only 9% of Britons have a negative view of the Queen, down from 14%.

As William and Kate approach their tenth wedding anniversary, 76 percent of Britons say that, when the time comes, Kate will make a good Queen.

Daily Question | 28/04/2021 | YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/arts/survey-results/daily/2021/04/28/874ee/2?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_2)

I think she will do just fine - as POW and Queen consort. 

Any politician around the world would wish to have that approval number.  :laugh:

Yep :happy:

 Again, I don?t understand why YouGov polls include non-working royals. Philip was always included though he retired in 2017. Now he?s dead let?s hope they don?t beat that particular drum any more.

However, Andrew, Harry and Meghan (by their own wish) Beatrice and Eugenie are not working royals. The York Princesses never have been. Why include them in these polls? 

As for this latest one, why was Sophie, spruiked in several recent articles as the ?great new hope of the BRF? not included?

It?s nice that the Queen?s numbers are up, though the next King?s are still nothing to write home about. However, this poll is obviously a reflection of the UK?s sympathy for a widowed Queen (and to a lesser extent the RF.) In all western constitutional monarchies over the last thirty odd years (and believe me, I?ve followed them) the approval levels for the monarchy concerned has hovered around the 60s-70s.

They have gradually receded since my childhood when any polls taken (there was no YouGov) regarding the subject were always in the 80s. They are only in the 80s where Queen Elizabeth is concerned after certain occasions like her jubilees. They then go back to ?normal?.

And even in this poll young people 25 and younger are less ecstatic about the monarchy than their elders. That reflects what I?ve been saying for years (here and elsewhere) about the natural flow of history, and about Charles?s reign and the future.

So much of the media refer to the RF as entertainment.  They are lumped in with actors and media stars.  And of course, if not educated otherwise, people see them as such.   

They are fodder for gossip, clickbait, chum for tabloids.

They are not that - the Monarch is part of the political make up of UK and other countries.  For the most part the other members are trying to do serious work with their charities.

Polls like these are senseless popularity contests.  However, polls can work as weather vines for the RF to make changes if needed.  But the poll has to be well thought out and well executed to have any meaning.

Yes and why is Zara Tindall sometime included but the Gloucesters and Kents don't get polled?

Queen dealt crushing blow as young Britons turn back on monarchy ? new Royal Family poll | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1439107/Queen-news-royal-family-latest-monarchy-head-of-state-yougov-poll)

A new YouGov poll shows a worrying trend for the BRF among the under-25s in the UK. More of this demographic are prepared to entertain the prospect of an elected Head of State in the future. This particular question has been asked by YouGov since 2019, and in that time support for a republic has risen by 15%.

The British monarchy has a succession problem ? POLITICO (https://www.politico.eu/article/british-monarchy-succession-problem-prince-charles/)

At question is not whether the U.K. will abolish the monarchy once Elizabeth dies. The institution itself continues to enjoy broad support, according to a poll from October. It?s whether ? with the U.K. under unprecedented strain from Scottish separatism and the aftereffects of Brexit ? any future monarch will be able to provide the same steadying influence as the one whose hand has been on the tiller for more than half a century.

One episode that highlights the potentially bumpy road ahead was the queen?s handling of Prime Minister Boris Johnson?s 2019 request that she suspend parliament during the peak of the Brexit debate ? a move then Speaker of the House John Bercow described as a ?constitutional outrage.? 

The queen?s decision to grant Johnson?s request sparked fury among those opposing Brexit, dragging her into the political fray and causing some to call for a reform of Britain?s unwritten constitution ? but she ultimately emerged from the so-called prorogation crisis unscathed.

It?s not clear her son would have been able to do the same. ?One of the questions I?ve been posing is, if you play the prorogation crisis through the lens of Prince Charles, would the same level of trust have been there for the media and the public?? said Catherine Haddon, historian at the Institute for Government and constitutional expert.

Im not sure everyone is aware but the second the Queen dies, Charles becomes King.

There's no debate, no nothing. The succession is instantaneous under common law.

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 05, 2021, 10:14:39 PM
Im not sure everyone is aware but the second the Queen dies, Charles becomes King.

There's no debate, no nothing. The succession is instantaneous under common law.

Oh, I think the vast majority of Britons who have been in the country longer than five minutes know that Charles is Elizabeth?s successor. That?s the problem for many.

From the same article.

?While the queen remains personally popular, a series of public relations disasters has tarnished the rest of the royal family. A recent poll found that more than 70 percent of people in Scotland, Wales and central England approved of the queen. Only 50 percent of respondents in Wales and central England approved of her heir, Prince Charles. In Scotland, support for Charles was just 41 percent.? 

Poll by British young people?s health charity ahead of Mental Health Day shows Queen admired by young Brits followed by Harry then Meghan.

Harry and Meghan more admired than William and Kate by young peopl (https://uk.style.yahoo.com/harry-meghan-more-admired-william-kate-young-people-072203838.html)

So it's a poll by stem4. Take it for what it is but it's not YouGov that we normally track.

No it's not but as I recall the Sussexes have typically had positive ratings from the younger members of Great Britain.

Prince Harry popularity & fame | YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Prince_Harry)

QuoteAge
Most popular with Millennials
With 55% positive opinion, Prince Harry is more popular among Millennials than among other age groups

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex popularity & fame | YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Meghan_Duchess_of_Sussex)

QuoteMost popular with Millennials
With 44% positive opinion, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is more popular among Millennials than among other age groups

It's all relative. Polls are irrelevant untill they support a particular view.

Harry and Meghan are irrelevant when viewed towards the monarchy because they I longer represent the government or the the Queen.

Yes, TLLK. I found it interesting that this little poll, taken ahead of Mental Health Day, carried on the trend by Millenials to sympathise with the Sussexes? position, as shown in recent YouGov polls.

BTW I made it clear in my original post that this was not a YouGov poll. And there have been plenty of YouGov polls that have shown the relative popularity or not of non working members of the BRF besides the Sussexes.

I guess if you're campaigning for a republic anything helps.

But just like William is light years ahead of Charles, it doesn't impact succession.

Meghan and Harry are an embarrassment with regards to polls. And anyway they gave up Royal life because they couldn't handle it.

Who said I was campaigning for a republic? I?m no longer a British citizen, but an Australian one, so the future of the British monarchy won?t be up to me, or any other non British citizen. Nor did I say anything about the succession to the Throne.

I have said in the past that

(A) There is not the feeling towards Charles (or Camilla) either in the UK nor in the realms that there is for his mother, and that therefore that will have an impact in his reign on his popularity and that of the monarchy both within Britain and in the Commonwealth.

(B) I have said that in Charles?s reign there is very likely to be a drifting away of the realms and republics in at least two large and important realms, Aus and NZ.

(C) I also believe that the 21st century and the current of history is against monarchies long term.

I stand by my views.

As a long term supporter of the Cambridges your views on the Sussexes are as expected.

You Gov UK with their second quarter ratings for the most popular members of the BRF. A bit surprised to see the late DoE included but the second quarter did include April 2021. QEII is  the most popular among those polled with the exception of the  Gen X rating which sees William in the top spot.

The most popular royalty in the UK | Politics | YouGov Ratings (https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all)
Among all adults: 1. QEII 2. William 3. Catherine 4. Phillip 5. Anne 6. Zara 7. Charles 8. Sophie 9. Edward 10. Camilla 11. Beatrice 12. Eugenie 13. Meghan 14. Harry 15. Andrew.

The Duke of Sussex has dropped 50 points in his U.K. approval rating compared to the 81 percent he enjoyed when his engagement to Meghan Markle was announced in November 2017.

The decline appeared to begin in January 2020 after Harry and Meghan quit royal duties. It continued through their Oprah Winfrey interview, reaching an all time low of 31 percent for the duke in the second quarter of this year.

Meghan's fall in British popularity has been less sharp, because she ranked lower to begin with, but it has taken her to a similar position, from 55 percent in October 2019 to 32 percent now.

More: Prince Harry, Meghan Markle Poll Slump Exceeds Charles' After Diana Divorce (https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-meghan-markle-poll-slump-exceeds-prince-charles-princess-diana-divorce-1622549?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true)

They are in the brink of being cancelled. (#cancelculturewoke)

I doubt that either of them are bothered. The Sussexes have a new life and careers in the US.

A slump when they left the working ranks of the RF was bound to happen anyway, and I always find it very peculiar that polling companies like YouGov and others continue to include non-working members like Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie and even the dead Duke of Edinburgh in their rankings. In addition whatever happens in these polls with Harry and Meghan they don?t succeed in making the future King and his concert extremely popular. They still rank mid to (in Camilla?s case) lower rank, an odd place for a future monarch and his wife.

New poll suggests 42 percent Britons won't support monarchy after Queen Elizabeth's death (https://www.geo.tv/latest/367043-new-poll-suggests-42-percent-britons-wont-support-monarchy-after-queen-elizabeths-death)

A new poll suggest that 42% of Britons are not likely to support the monarchy after the Queen?s death. The results appeared in the New Statesman journal.

Media - Redfield & Wilton Strategies (https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/media/)

A further breakdown of the poll from The New Statesman

QuoteA new poll conducted in the United Kingdom suggests that the majority of people in Britain support the institution of the monarchy.

QuoteA report based on the poll and published in the same magazine said, "When asked whether they support or oppose the monarchy, ​​53 per cent of respondents say they support the institution, of which 26 per cent strongly support it. Just 18 per cent oppose it, of whom only 7 per cent strongly oppose it, and 23 per cent neither support nor oppose it."

It's a legitimate poll but both the polling company and the New Statesman lean very much to the left.

That said the monarchy is in no danger.

Harry and Meghan's net favourability ratings have fallen to their lowest ever levels

Prince Harry: -25 (19 point drop)
Meghan: -39 (7 point drop)

(Changes from 21 April)

Public opinion continues to fall for Harry and Meghan | YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/09/03/public-opinion-continues-fall-harry-and-meghan?utm_source=twitter%20&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=harry_meghan_favourability)

And for the other members of the BRF here are some recent results.
HM QEII remains the most respected with the highest approval ratings :thumbsup: while her second son Prince Andrew is at the bottom.  <_< Charles is rated a little higher than he has in the past with at more than half of those polled having a positive opinion.

QuoteElsewhere, the Queen continues her reign as the most popular royal family member, with 80% of the public holding a positive opinion of the monarch.

The Queen is closely followed in popularity by the second in line to the throne, Prince William, who is more than twice as popular (78%) as brother Harry. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is held in similarly high regard (75%).

Half of the public currently take a positive view of Prince Charles (54%). His wife. Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, is divisive among the public - some 43% of people have a positive opinion of her, while 42% hold a negative opinion.

Prince Andrew remains the least popular royal family member. Some 83% of the public have a negative opinion of him, compared to only 6% who think of him positively.

Now I do agree with @Curryong's opinion  that You Gov should remove the Sussexes, the Yorks (Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie) along with Zara Tindall from their list of BRF members. None of those mentioned are currently performing royal duties and some never have done so.

 :hi: :windsor1: :orchid:

I saw an article on the daily mail website that said that George will likely never be king because the monarchy won't be around by the time that George will be king or something to that effect. I can try to get the link on here if you want to read it. Or you can look it up yourself.  :D :blowkiss: :royalsneeze: :thumbsdown: :flower: :hearts:

Dame Hilary is more than just a writer of historical fiction, though. She also studied law at the LSE and Sheffield University, graduating as a Bach:of Jurisprudence. Yes, she?s a lifetime Republican, but many monarchists can also see the beginning of the end in the next thirty odd years. So many aspects of this system are becoming harder and harder to justify in debates.

Hilary Mantel has obviously observed, as I have stated here many times, that the tide of history in the 21st century is flowing against the monarchical system and all its accompaniments. Other, younger historians, agree with her. Prince Charles once observed ?We (the BRF) are just a bl*ody soap opera? (with regard to their image through the media lens.) It seems he also agrees with Hilary as well.

Dickie Arbiter
@RoyalDickie

Harry doesn't live in the UK so by default he loses his position as a Counsellor of State, that Beatrice is tipped to take over is Speculation.

With news abuzz about 2 counsellor of state positions that allegedly are being discussed within the walls of Her Majesty's household, who in your opinion would be a great replacement for Andrew and Harry? Anne, Edward, others.

Experts say Camilla can also be CoS, and that she will automatically once Charles is King.  Explain please?

****
Marlene Koenig
@royalmusing

You don't have to even be royal to be a counsellor of state. It is an order of succession to the throne but you have to be 21 with the exception of the heir apparent. Spouse of the sovereign is also a COS. With hairy living in the US Beatrice would become COS.

****

Despite Andrew living in the UK, his tattered reputation and being banned as a royal worker is social media trending first, Harry second.

The Queen: +71 (+4)
William: +67 (+5)
Kate: +64 (+5)
Charles: +27 (+10)
Camilla: +3 (+2)
Harry: -15 (+10)
Meghan: -38 (+1)

Changes from 27-29 Aug.

Public opinion of Prince Charles improves in latest royal favourability poll | YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/12/02/public-opinion-prince-charles-improves-latest-roya?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=royal_favourability_ratings)

I am really glad to see that improvement for Prince Charles, as he is one brilliant man who is highly underestimated by most of the people in the country.   He took the Duchy of Cornwall from almost nothing and made it into a place where the Duchy helps so many people and works for the country.  An artist in his own right and he loves going out to events and meeting the people  and sharing stories and drinks and life......He will make a fabulous king someday far off into the future and it is way past time to leave the past where it is, in the past, done and over with.

Far in the future?  The queen is 95..  she is not immortal and Charles will be King some time in the next few years.

The quoted text is from the YouGov article that @PrincessOfPeace shared. YouGovUK releases these articles and the ratings four times throughout the year so I have to say that I'm not too surprised by the results having seen similar percentages throughout 2021.   I'm happy to see that the PoW is seeing a growth in his favorable rating and that includes the younger people who participated in the polling. :windsor1: Among the family members listed, I'm very pleased for the Princess Royal who over the decades has definitely seen an improvement with her constant appearances around the UK on behalf of the monarchy, government and her numerous charities and patronages. :Jen: She's now seen the fourth most popular member of the BRF. I hope that eventually her youngest brother might be seen in a similar view, but as pointed out in the article it would seem a fair number of participants don't know much about him and responded with "don't know." No surprise that the DoY has the dubious honor of the lowest favorable rating.  <_<

QuotePositive opinion of Prince Charles rose by six points over the last three months, according to new YouGov royal favourability data, from 54% at the end of August to 60% now. The Prince of Wales has seen the largest increase in favourability among the Royal Family over that period.

The Prince of Wales?s popularity is higher among older Brits. While the same percentage of 18 to 24-year-olds have a positive opinion of Charles as have a negative one (43%), 73% of those aged 65 and over see the Prince in a positive light vs 31% a negative one.

Prince Charles?s wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, has not seen the same rise in popularity as her husband. Positive opinion of her was at 43% in August, compared with 45% now, while 42% have a negative opinion of her.

Prince Harry?s favourability has been dropping steadily over the past two years, taking a 9 point hit from April to August. But our latest survey shows opinion of the Duke of Sussex is starting to recover ? it?s up five points and now stands at 39%. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, has not seen her favourability improve over the same period ? 27% of the British public have a favourable opinion of her, compared with 26% in August. The three most popular royals ? the Queen, Prince William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge ? have maintained consistently high favourability, with the Queen retaining her top spot as most popular royal (83%). The proportion of Britons who say they have a ?very positive? opinion of the monarch has increased by six points to 57%.

Prince William is twice as popular (80%) as his brother Harry, and Kate is nearly three times as popular (77%) as Meghan.

Charles?s younger sister Princess Anne is more popular than him ? with two-thirds (68%) of the British public saying they have a favourable opinion of her ? and ranks at number 4 in the list. His younger brother Prince Edward is less popular, but also less well-known, with around half (48%) of the British public having a favourable opinion of him and 29% saying ?don?t know?.

Prince Andrew has consistently remained the least popular senior royal, with four in five (81%) Britons having a negative opinion of him, compared to just 8% who think of him positively.

Finally, I'm not sure why the Sussexes continue to be included in these polls considering that they stepped back from senior royal duties in 2020. :shrug: IMHO I'd rather see Sophie included.

Quote from: TLLK on December 04, 2021, 02:46:30 PM
The quoted text is from the YouGov article that @PrincessOfPeace shared. YouGovUK releases these articles and the ratings four times throughout the year so I have to say that I'm not too surprised by the results having seen similar percentages throughout 2021.   I'm happy to see that the PoW is seeing a growth in his favorable rating and that includes the younger people who participated in the polling. :windsor1: Among the family members listed, I'm very pleased for the Princess Royal who over the decades has definitely seen an improvement with her constant appearances around the UK on behalf of the monarchy, government and her numerous charities and patronages. :Jen: She's now seen the fourth most popular member of the BRF. I hope that eventually her youngest brother might be seen in a similar view, but as pointed out in the article it would seem a fair number of participants don't know much about him and responded with "don't know." No surprise that the DoY has the dubious honor of the lowest favorable rating.  <_<


Finally, I'm not sure why the Sussexes continue to be included in these polls considering that they stepped back from senior royal duties in 2020. :shrug: IMHO I'd rather see Sophie included.

Yes, so would I. It seems illogical in the extreme to include people who aren?t working royals. If it is to be in-laws and ALL the adult grandchildren as well then the Phillips and Tindalls should be included as well as the Yorkies, but aren?t for obvious reasons as they aren?t on the public payroll. The Sussexes aren?t either but I suppose are included because YouGov didn?t get the memo about them leaving for good!

I presume Andrew is there on the list to make his siblings look good but also because he receives a private income from his mother. It is illogical to not include Sophie as she is as much on the public Rota as the others. Bit different to, for example, Sir Tim Lawrence who doesn?t have a public role, but is a supportive spouse.

From the Daily Telegraph with a review of the past year and how the British monarchy is fairing. The author examines how the three royal households: BP/WC, CH and KP have come together over the past twelve months. Previously the three had struggled to find a cohesive working relationship, but that appears to have changed for the better.

archive.ph (https://archive.ph/K3AJE)

Quote
The difficult year that brought The Firm together
This turbulent 12 months has seen the three royal households finally united in adversity
By Hannah Furness, Royal Correspondent 17 December 2021 ? 8:03pm
When millions of Britons tune in to the Queen?s Christmas broadcast next Saturday, they will be waiting to hear which elegant turn of phrase she finds to sum up the royal rollercoaster that has been 2021. It may be almost impossible to match the exquisite ?annus horribilis? with which she wrapped up 1992?s record lows, but no one doubts Her Majesty will find a way.
From the Sussexes? generous sharing of their truth with Oprah to the Duke of York?s excruciating involvement in a sex abuse trial and the death of her beloved Prince Philip, there have been more low points over the past 12 months than even someone as stoic as Her Majesty might care to remember.
Yet still, somehow, she finishes the year at her most popular in a decade. The Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall have gone up in public opinion throughout the year, according to the polls, while the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are still soaring high. How, in a year when they must have felt battered on all sides, have they endured? Three generations: the current and future monarchy, laid out for decades to come.
Unity forged in adversity,? says one who knows the family well. Or perhaps, as no-one working at the palace is daft enough to agree with: united by common enemies?
If 1992 ? ?not a year on which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure? ? saw a devastating Windsor fire, a then-controversial run of separations and divorce, and the bombshell Andrew Morton book on Diana, then 2021 also brought its fair share of drama.
It started in March, with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex launching a grenade back to Britain in the shape of their Oprah interview. The Royal family left them to fend for themselves, they said. Kate made ME cry, claimed the Duchess. There were ?concerns and conversations about how dark? Archie?s skin might be. And the quietly devastating, from Meghan: ?I just didn?t want to be alive anymore.?
News of the Duke of Edinburgh, in hospital and nearing the end of his life at the age of 99, did not halt the onslaught.
Having already declared he felt ?really let down by [his] father?, who had stopped taking his calls, Prince Harry went on to give a series of candid interviews. Having therapy on air to overcome his past trauma, he spoke of the ?genetic pain? and life as a royal as ?a mix between The Truman Show and living in a zoo.? Later in the year, the announcement of his autobiography coming in 2022 promised his unvarnished truth about his years growing up in Britain before fleeing to California with his new family to find financial freedom.
Even the birth of the second Sussex baby, a little girl in June, was marred by a muddle over her name, Lilibet Diana. She was named in the Queen?s honour, said Harry and Meghan. The Queen ? whose childhood nickname of Lilibet was used by Prince Philip, her parents and her closest friends ? was not asked but told, sources replied.
The Duchess won her case against the Mail on Sunday twice, but more was aired about her relationship with the Royal family than anyone would have wished. Her in-laws were ?constantly berating? her husband over why they hadn?t put a stop to Thomas Markle?s misbehaviour, she said in text messages revealed in the case paperwork. ?They fundamentally don?t understand.?
And so it went on. The Prince of Wales was embroiled in an embarrassing cash-for-honours story, which saw his one-time closest aide resign from his charity after coordinating with fixers over an honour for a Saudi billionaire donor ? without the Prince?s knowledge, of course. Barbados removed the Queen as Head of State in what was seen as the first of a domino effect for the Commonwealth realms over the coming years. In May, the Queen?s new five-month-old puppy Fergus died, just as she was finding her feet again after the loss of the Duke.

Most seriously, the ghost of the Duke of York?s decades-long association with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein finally reached crunch point, with his accuser Virginia Guiffrey serving legal papers and former friend Ghislaine Maxwell in court. 

?That was the moment,? says a palace source, that led to the family working in consultation. The Duke was encouraged to step back from his public duties. ?That was really the beginning of the formulation of what you could call a Queen, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cambridge alliance

And major decisions about anything affecting the future of the monarch now include the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge, where they once would have gone to the Queen alone.

The private secretaries of Kensington Palace, representing the Cambridges, are involved in the big institutional meetings in a way they were not several years ago, and each generation is having input into decisions they will one day live with once the Queen is no longer with them.

?What it?s proved is that when it comes to the big issues, they all think alike,? says a different palace source, of recent challenges. ?You couldn?t get a bit of paper between them. Therefore, there is this continuity: they understand what?s important and what isn?t.

?When push comes to shove, can you be half a member of the Royal family or not? No you can?t. They?re rock solid on that. You?ve got to go out and be seen ? they all agree on that.?

A third added: ?The Queen is still very much the boss. I see it almost like a Chairman, COO, CEO roles. She sets the values and makes the ultimate decision, [the Prince of Wales] advises and enforces, and [the Duke of Cambridge] provides further advice and support.

?They all have different strengths. They all have, very usefully, different perspectives as well.
?It helps, when you?re taking decisions that people will have different views about, if you?ve got multi-generational apparatus for trying to get to the right answer. The consequence of that of course is that it brings father and son closer together, and all three ultimately closer together because they?re doing more all together.?
The result has been some of the best headlines and brightest moments of the year. The public warmth has been unmistakable. In the once icy seas of emotionally-stunted filial relationships has come gushing praise. ?I am very proud of my son, William,? said Charles, ahead of his Earthshot Prize to help save the environment.
?It is a source of great pride to me that the leading role my husband played in encouraging people to protect our fragile planet, lives on through the work of our eldest son Charles and his eldest son William,? the Queen told COP26 in her official address. ?I could not be more proud of them.?

In June, the ladies of the family ? the Queen, Duchess of Cornwall and Duchess of Cambridge ? giggled their way through their first joint engagement in nearly a decade, as Her Majesty cut a cake with a ornamental sword. And who can forget the great return for British cinema, which saw the Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and Duke and Duchess of Cambridge team up on the red carpet for the glittering James Bond premiere? Other planned moments, like the Queen joining Kate for a visit to the V&A?s Faberge exhibition, were cancelled after Her Majesty fell ill, but there will be more cross-generation fun to come.
In the tough moments, too, there has been unity. Statements which would once have been drafted and issued by Buckingham Palace alone are largely agreed by aides across all three households and ? for the most important ? the royals themselves.
A disastrous 2014 attempt, under then-communications director Sally Osman, to unify the press offices of the three key royals had quietly fallen by the wayside, with each back in their separate households fighting their bosses? corners.
But increasingly there has seemed little to fight over. Diary clashes still happen but are easier to plan for with fewer members of the family. All want to save the planet and broadly agree on how to do so. All wanted to help bolster the country through the coronavirus pandemic. All were keen to get back out there and see people beyond the screen as soon as lockdown lifted.
?Everyone realised that stories about households fighting is just a distraction from the far more important things going on in the world,? a palace insider says. ?The family focus has been on that, looking outwards.?
When the Queen said ?recollections may vary? over the Sussexes?s most shocking claims of racism, it would have been with Prince Charles and Prince William?s approval. When Prince Harry had to forgo his military patronages against his will at the end of his trial year living the American dream, the working Royal family were regretful but firm that the line between the monarchy and making money must be clear. The recent row with the BBC, which infuriated aides with the *Princes and the Press* documentary, saw a rare joint statement from all three palace press secretaries representing their bosses.

Some of this, of course, has been for practical reasons. While private and press secretaries once had to arrange a formal meeting in the diary, or telephone through a switchboard to put pen to paper, they now fire WhatsApp messages to one another day and night. The technological leap of the pandemic made it suddenly possible for the Queen to simply videocall her two heirs for a chat at the same time, should she wish to. With the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge now doing investitures for the Queen at Windsor Castle rather than Buckingham Palace, they can pop in for a cup of tea and a chat in the private apartments close by.
There is not, several sources said, a great reimagination of the Prince of Wales?s personal relationship with his son. While much closer than they were a decade ago, it is unwise to imagine any huge emotional outpouring between them. Rather, there has been a concerted effort to support each other?s work publicly, uniting in their causes and messaging. Prince William, one canny royal observer pointed out, has steered well clear of the cash-for-honours stories involving his father?s charity, keenly aware of the risk of being tarred with the same brush.
Above all, sources say, the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William are agreed on the purpose of the head of nation: to unify, to provide stability, to celebrate the achievements of others and support their service. Increasingly this year, they have also been embracing what lesser mortals might describe simply as the fun side of the job.
Lord Charteris, the Queen?s former private secretary, once described the Royal family as being in ?the happiness business?, spreading a little cheer where it is in short supply.
In the sometimes very dark days of 2021, this objective has come into its own. 
Little has topped Her Majesty?s rather unexpected visit to the cobbles of Coronation Street in July, where she walked out to meet a cast of old favourites to the soap?s theme tune.
?The sun came out (rare in Manchester), the Queen emerged from The Street and the *Corrie* theme tune struck up to massed cheering and laughter,? recalls John Whiston, Head of ITV in the north.

For others, it was a letter that brought joy. In October, when she must already have been feeling somewhat unwell, the Queen elegantly turned down an Oldie of the Year Award, claiming ?you are only as old as you feel? and she therefore did not qualify. 
?It was witty and charming,? says Harry Mount, The Oldie nagazine?s editor. ?The only thing better than the Queen accepting the award was her turning it down.?
And three new royal babies for the Queen's granddaughters Zara Tindall, Princess Beatrice and Beatrice Eugenie brought the simple joy only a newborn can.
The Duke of Cambridge, too, has embraced the lighter side of life, after the serious work of his Earthshot Prize. Recent interviews have heard him share his headbanging music taste, answer quickfire questions about his Christmas plans from children, and delight in talking about his three children?s cheeky antics at home.
For keen observers of the monarchy, the loyal public has rallied like never before in protective support of a Queen enduring a terrible time, even before she was laid low with a mystery illness which left her undergoing tests in hospital.
?She has lost her husband of 73 years, she has endured the public fallout of family matters, and all against the backdrop of the pandemic,? said Emily Nash, royal editor at Hello! magazine, ?and yet she has remained as steadfast as ever with her family rallying around her.
?Certainly after seeing her sitting alone at Prince Philip?s funeral, there was a huge outpouring of sympathy and support for her, particularly from people who had gone through similar experiences themselves during Covid-19.?
There is precedent for a modern monarch emerging stronger from a difficult period, says Professor Tracy Borman, chief curator at Historic Royal Palaces and author of new book Crown & Sceptre.
When Queen Victoria faced rising republican clamour after all-but giving up her public role after the death of Prince Albert, her ?response was to come back all guns blazing and absolutely take refuge in the pomp and pageantry that is most valued in the Royal family,? she says. ?That?s a typical response to a crisis: let?s remind people what they like about royals.
?When George VI came to the throne after the abdication crisis, there were lots of photo opportunities with himself and his wife [the Queen Mother] and two daughters [the then-Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret], with the little princesses feeding ducks in the pond.

?How both he and our current Queen have responded to crises is just that sense of being a really firm hand. Dutiful, constant, unflappable. Even hardened republicans respect the Queen at times of crisis.?
As for the future?
The Sussexes will continue to plough their furrows with Netflix and Spotify, serving up sensationally revealing books and interviews and ? hopefully for all involved ? finding quiet contentment in their new riches and healthy family. The Duke of York will see justice done in one way or another. Hopes of a full return to public life are vanishingly small, despite the plans for his rehabilitation dreamt up during his imposed isolation at Royal Lodge.
The Queen, when she is fully recovered and back in the public eye will be joined at all times by a member of her family, both for companionship and to step in should she have to make a last-minute decision to stay at home.
On Christmas Eve, when the public tune in to watch the Duchess of Cambridge?s Westminster Abbey carol service on television, they may notice those members of the family who flocked around her ? not just the Middletons but her younger, most-fun in-laws in the front row.
Zara and Mike Tindall, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie and Sophie Wessex all showed up to support the Cambridges? charity event, recorded earlier this month, in a glimpse at what could be the beginning of a new era, after the ?Fab Four? disintegrated, leaving Kate and William standing alone.

?It has definitely been a turbulent year for the family and the institution more broadly,? says a source. ?Some of that has brought some of the family closer together. The Queen is untouchable and will always be untouchable now. It?s been a hard year for her and everyone will do everything they can to support and serve her.?
And while the departure of the Sussexes momentarily clouded the once-clear vision of the institution, as the year draws to a close, ?you can see the current monarchy and the future ? the Cambridges ? which means the institution as a whole continues to be in a strong place.?
As the Queen recovers her strength after illness, still hopeful of gathering her family around her in Sandringham this Christmas, she has much to look forward to.
That affection from the public, that protective loyalty, and that unmatched thrill of seeing her in real life will be made plain next year, as she reaches her 70th year on the throne ? a feat unmatched in British history. Every detail of her Platinum Jubilee celebrations has been planned with the Queen?s taste and comfort in mind. An all-singing, all-dancing pageant, a horse show designed around her great love of all things equine, a concert, the street parties, the tree-planting and the flag-waving: it will be pomp and pageantry of the like this worn-down nation has forgotten can exist. And she will never stand alone.
As we wait for her to distil this odd year in a moment of Christmas speech catharsis, the Queen will be talking to a nation who needs to hear her like never before. Next year, as the Jubilee swings into action, she will learn in return from her people just how much she means to them.


 

Thanks for the article TLLK, it was a very interesting and worthwhile read.  I like how all the negatives for HM and family have turned into positives, shows that they really think ahead and are concerned for the country and the entire monarchy.  A great team, HM. Prince Charles and Prince William.   I don't get why so many dislike Prince Charles, life is full of mistakes made by all of us, nobody is ever perfect in this world, and he has suffered and paid dearly for his mistakes and Diana was not a perfect human being, just a bad mismatched marriage that never should of happened. Prince Charles is a brilliant man, he is a strong leader and really has his head on straight, he has turned the Duchy of Cornwall into a big business that has helped thousands of people and paid millions in taxes to the country.....his love of his country is out there loud and clear.  He will make a great king someday , far off into the future. 

realistically it isn't that far off in the future.  The queen is very old..  We lost Philip this year and she's only a few years his junior.  So Charles is close to the throne.  I think he's done a good job as POW.... and Camilla has become a good support for him.

An interesting read once you get past the first half  of the article. Personally I don't need to read again about the DoY, the Sussexes or even Peter Phillips.
I live in a republic, but I can understand the appeal that a constitutional monarchy can hold for a nation over an elected Head of State. (However I'm not asking for a return of the the two remaining constitutional monarchies that remain from the four that once dominated North America to the U.S.  So Queen Elizabeth II or King Felipe VI won't be asked to step in anytime in the future.  :wink:)

The Queen was RIGHT to axe Prince Andrew for the sake of the monarchy, says AN WILSON | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10404373/The-Queen-RIGHT-axe-Prince-Andrew-sake-monarchy-says-WILSON.html)

QuoteThere are moments in national life ? of rejoicing and of grief ? where the monarch's role is irreplaceable. Think of Remembrance Sunday at the Cenotaph without the royal presence. How bleak it would be if the only non-military figures laying wreaths were dud politicians.

Think of the sheer joy given by royal visits to schools, hospitals, factories, and compare this with the boredom, or embarrassment, of being visited by a Cabinet minister. You only have to make that contrast in your mind to see what we would lose if the monarchy were abolished.

But we should not take the durability of the institution for granted.

At the end of World War I, when Russia, Germany, Austria and many other European nations were replacing their monarchs with forms of government in every way more tyrannical and bloody, George V, our king, once quietly remarked: 'I'm going to have to work hard to keep my job.'

He and his wife, Queen Mary, did indeed work to develop the concept of constitutional monarchy.

Far from endangering parliamentary democracy, it strengthened it. With a monarch as head of state, there is continuity and stability ? it is no accident we remained a democracy when countries without kings or emperors ended up with leaders such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco.

The writer wants to see all of the royals who are behind Prince Louis in the line of succession to relinquish their royal titles and that includes the Princess Royal and the Wessexes. However the author doesn't mention anything about their ducal ones ie: Kent, Sussex, Gloucester etc..

QuoteThere is absolutely no reason why they should be given grace-and-favour royal residences to live in. Above all, they should not be a drain on the British taxpayer.

Prince Charles himself has called for some such paring down, but there is one area which he still persistently fails to grasp ? as do all the rest of the royals.

It is the matter of their private wealth. The Queen and her family, thanks to the good luck and stinginess of Queen Victoria, are heirs to enormous riches.

They have two palatial (but ugly) residences at Balmoral and Sandringham which are their personal property, as are large amounts of family jewels and treasures.

They also benefit from the vast income of estates such as the Duchy of Cornwall. In the year 2019/20 it provided Prince Charles with more than ?22 million.

Most of the family are, by the standards of the rest of us, super-rich. Even a junior member such as Zara Tindall, for example, is worth far in excess of ?15 million. Sophie, Countess of Wessex, is worth about ?10 million.

Given this wealth, there should be a great deal less reliance on the taxpayer and Government to fund the monarchy through the Civil List (now called the Sovereign Grant). In my view the vast revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall should not go to Charles but be in the hands of the state (as governments have tried to make them since 1837!).

A combination of paring back the institution to its key members and reducing its reliance on the Sovereign Grant would give our monarchy more than a fighting chance of long-term survival.

In the meantime, I will continue to sing God Save The Queen ? by which I will mean, among other things, God Save Her from certain godawful members of her own family.

Palace officials mull ways of axing Andrew and Harry as two of the four Counsellors of State | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10412099/Palace-officials-mull-ways-axing-Andrew-Harry-two-four-Counsellors-State.html)

QuoteAn Act of Parliament would be needed to remove Andrew and Harry, perhaps replacing them with Princess Anne and the Duchess of Cornwall.

?There could be events later this year which make such a change necessary,? says the source, who declined to elaborate further.

The position of Counsellor of State was provided for in 1937 under the terms of the Regency Act.

Prior to 1937, Regency Acts were drafted and passed only in necessity.

As such, there had been nine separate Regency Acts to cover various eventualities since 1728.

Shortly after George VI came to the throne in 1936, a new Regency Act was passed which provided a rule for all future reigns.

It was at this time that the new office of Counsellor of State was created to cover short term absences where a regency would be unnecessary.

QuoteCounsellors of State are authorised to carry out most of the official duties of the Sovereign, for example, attending Privy Council meetings, signing routine documents and receiving the credentials of new ambassadors to the United Kingdom.

The position of Counsellor of State was provided for in 1937 under the terms of the Regency Act.

Prior to 1937, Regency Acts were drafted and passed only in necessity.

As such, there had been nine separate Regency Acts to cover various eventualities since 1728.

Shortly after George VI came to the throne in 1936, a new Regency Act was passed which provided a rule for all future reigns.

It was at this time that the new office of Counsellor of State was created to cover short term absences where a regency would be unnecessary.

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-01-18/andrew-can-deputise-for-queen-despite-no-royal-patronages-how-it-works

Palace considers stripping Prince Andrew and Harry of job held by just 4 royals - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/palace-considers-stripping-prince-andrew-25983034)

Quote from: sara8150 on January 19, 2022, 01:24:28 AM
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-01-18/andrew-can-deputise-for-queen-despite-no-royal-patronages-how-it-works

Palace considers stripping Prince Andrew and Harry of job held by just 4 royals - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/palace-considers-stripping-prince-andrew-25983034)

[edit] If the Queen was going to remove Harry from being a Counsellor of State she would have done it by now. He?s been gone two years. And C-O-S arent exactly needed on a day to day basis. The last time one was left in charge was in 2002.

As for the Jubilee Medals, they are in the Queen?s gift. Even minor members of her extended family get one. I would be prepared to bet money that both Harry and Andrew receive one.

@Curryong-I agree that the Sussexes and the DoY will receive the Jubilee medals.

Ummm that bet would be in virtual currency...right?  :happy: We have a strict unwritten policy that bets in Monopoly money, favorite snacks from posters' nations and chocolate coins are to be handled at your own risk.

(Don't tell the Administrator but the mod team might be willing to act as your go betweens for a share of the snacks and chocolate coins.) :high5: :wink:

New YouGov UK poll question regarding the Duke of York's legal issues, stepping back from royal duties and dropping his style "HRH" and does it impact the monarchy?

Daily Question | 13/01/2022 | YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/arts/survey-results/daily/2022/01/13/2c010/2)

Quote To what extent, if at all, do you think the ongoing case involving Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre is damaging the monarchy?
All adults
Very much
30%
Somewhat
40%
Not very much
13%
Not at all
4%
Don?t know
13%

Interesting scenario posed by one of the writers at Royal Central. While I believe the chances of the DoY having to take on the role  are very low, it may require a revision of who is considered a Counsellor of State.

Prince Charles in isolation, Prince William overseas ? and very real questions about whether Prince Andrew could take on a major royal role ? Royal (https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/prince-charles-in-isolation-prince-william-overseas-and-very-real-questions-about-whether-prince-andrew-could-take-on-a-major-royal-role-172505/)

1900 a problem
2022 not a problem

With covid, isolated but there's a door to slip in food beverage and papers, then there's zoom, scanners...

With private jet or commercial flight, which the latter was used by W. It's not Greta taking a 3 month boat trip.

The British Monarchy is the oldest firm...been there done that, have had traitors in their family and relations,  unusual royal central question.

An opinion piece from The Guardian promoting the notion that an abdication by QEII would be good for the monarchy and for her successor(s). However I do believe that she won't abdicate and I'd hate to see a Regency appointed due to her physical health.

My own personal opinion is that I believe that it would be best for the British Monarchy to adopt the practice of abdication as retirement that traditionally began in the nations of the Netherlands and Luxembourg and has now been adopted by Belgium, Spain, Japan, and the Vatican.

Whisper it, but the time is right for the Queen to abdicate | Simon Jenkins | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/14/queen-abdicate-70-years-prince-charles-monarchy)

QuoteA retirement in good health, like that of Beatrix of the Netherlands in 2013, a retreat to Windsor and Charles?s coronation would be a dignified and happy occasion. It would celebrate British monarchy not as a ritual of death and rebirth, but as a simple facet of the constitution. It would also relieve Charles of a deluge of comparison, especially if he decides on changes in royal custom and practice, as well he should.

Whatever is wrong with British politics just now, the monarchy cannot be blamed. At least Britain is avoiding the US?s current agonies of state. But monarchy?s stability depends on public favour. That favour can never be taken for granted. The Queen?s early retirement should be seen not as an ?abdication?, but as prudent, considerate common sense.

I don't think the British public would accept a new monarch as long as the Queen is alive. She'd always be 'Queen Elizabeth'.

Maybe going forward it can work though

NEW: The Duchess of Cambridge has overtaken her husband, Prince William, as Britain's second most popular royal.

Polling by @Ipsos suggests The Queen remains the nation's favourite, whilst Prince Andrew remains at the bottom of the pile.

https://twitter.com/CameronDLWalker/status/1494291712549834756?s=20&t=kcjK28mURtEUNwRfkdqeMA

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/platinum-jubilee-year-queen-elizabeth-reigns-supreme-as-britains-favourite-royal

Queen Elizabeth is increasingly bringing royal heirs Prince Charles and Prince William into the fold.

While the monarch, 95, continues to keep a busy schedule, she's enlisted her son and grandson to carry out many of her royal duties ? especially those that involve foreign travel. In addition, without her husband Prince Philip to consult with on matters, the Queen remains in regular contact with Prince Charles and Prince William, often by phone.

More: Queen Elizabeth Is in Regular Contact with Prince Charles and Prince William | PEOPLE.com (https://people.com/royals/queen-elizabeth-regular-contact-prince-charles-prince-william-operate-together/?utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_content=new&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=621688e5f665b4000143ed8c)

If anyone is interested, this document from the House of Commons library explains the roles of a Regency as well as the Counsellors of State.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9374/

QuoteThe relevant legislation, the Regency Acts 1937 to 1953, deal with four potential scenarios:

    A monarch succeeding to the Throne before the age of 18
    A monarch becoming permanently incapacitated
    A monarch becoming temporarily incapacitated
    The absence of a monarch from the United Kingdom

For the first two scenarios, the 1937 Act made provision for the next in line to the Throne (assuming they were 18) being made Regent. And for the second two, the appointment of Counsellors of State to act on the monarch?s behalf.

I found this very interesting regarding Counsellors of State and was wondering if @Curryong recalls this episode in history?

QuoteCounsellors of State

In the case of temporary incapacity or absence from the UK, then the monarch can appoint ?Counsellors of State? via Letters Patent.

These are all members of the Royal Family who have reached the age of 21 (except the heir to the Throne, who only needs to be 18). Two or more can carry out most Royal functions. They cannot, however, create peers or dissolve Parliament without the express permission of the monarch.

A Regency has not been required in the UK in more than 200 years. Counsellors of State, however, have often carried out Royal functions. In February 1974, for example, the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret declared a state of emergency and dissolved Parliament.

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/on-this-day-1974-campaign-likely-to-be-one-of-641018 @Curryong-This is from the Eastern Daily Press which appears to be a Norfolk paper.

Yes it is an East Anglian newspaper group, TLLK. In 1974 I was newly married and had my first child in April of that year here in Australia, so there were a few things going on in my life! However, I do remember it being a time of turbulence in the UK. Among other things there was a very bitter miner?s strike, which divided Britain. Mines were closing due to economic reasons and a whole way of life was ending for many in the coal mining areas of the Welsh valleys and the far north of England. It divided Britain, unsurprisingly caused power shortages (homes and even some factories were still heavy users of coal)  and there were a few confrontations with the miners and police, which continued into Margaret Thatcher?s time, culminating in further crises in the mid 1980s miners strikes. The Queen was no doubt extremely worried as she was returning from a long tour of Australia.

This is from Wikki, but does give an overview of the political consequences of Heath?s decision to call a snap election in the February of 1974.

?Attempting to resolve the situation, Heath called an election for February 1974, attempting to obtain a mandate to face down the miners' wage demands, but this instead resulted in a hung parliament, with the Conservatives losing their majority. Despite gaining fewer votes, the Labour Party won four more seats, and Heath resigned as Prime Minister on 4 March after talks with the Liberal Party to form a coalition government were unsuccessful.

After losing a second successive election in October 1974, Heath insisted he would continue as leader, but in January 1975, Margaret Thatcher announced she would challenge Heath for the leadership, and on 4 February, she narrowly outpolled him in the first round. Heath chose to resign the leadership rather than contest the second round.?

So it was a time of real national crisis, and the QM and Prss Margaret were no doubt worried too, as they dissolved Parliament on the advice of a Govt and PM which were themselves in turmoil.

Was Charles a Counsellor of State at that time? Can?t remember. He was over 21 but may have been undergoing naval training in that year.  Heath was BTW a surprisingly ineffective PM. Not particularly liked by his colleagues he folded quickly when Thatcher proved the new hope of the Conservatives.

@Curryong -Thank you again for sharing your recollections of that time period when you were definitely at a very busy time in your life.  :friends: Your information regarding the economic and political landscape of the UK in the 1970's has given me a greater understanding of the nation's rather bleak situation.
It must have been an unnerving experience for QEQM and PssM to realize that due to the Queen's absence, they'd be formally tasked with dissolving Parliament.

No worries, TLLK! I looked up Charles?s info and he in fact was a naval officer on his first voyage serving on HMS Jupiter from the January of that year visiting ports in Africa, New Zealand and Hawaii for the rest of the year. Not sure whether he was a Counsellor of State at that time, I suspect he was, but of course couldn?t perform in that office as he was almost as far away from Britain in early February as his mother the Queen was.

It was indeed a very turbulent and troubling time for Britons, but that election and the one very soon after it began a period of political instability for the Conservatives, was the death knell for Ted Heath?s ambitions and the beginning of the Thatcher years, so it was especially notable I suppose. 

Wow they couldn't wait for the Queen to catch a flight, couldn't wait for a 'few hours' for touchdown! Whoever pressured the QM and M...they wanted out ipso facto/ASAP...

Quote from: wannable on March 08, 2022, 03:05:40 PM
Wow they couldn't wait for the Queen to catch a flight, couldn't wait for a 'few hours' for touchdown! Whoever pressured the QM and M...they wanted out ipso facto/ASAP...

That would have been the PM, Ted Heath, who ordinarily would have discussed things on a visit to BP and given up his commission. As it was, he was deep in talks with Jeremy Thorpe, head of the Liberals, intent on a coalition to cling onto power. Depending where the Queen was in Australia at the time the crisis broke (she could have been in an outback town)  it would have taken at least 24 hours to fly home after she?d heard about it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26381917

The Queen and crises of this sort in her reign.

No hung parliament means a sigh of relief for the Queen (https://theconversation.com/no-hung-parliament-means-a-sigh-of-relief-for-the-queen-41527)

Is 1974 the only year of Queen Elizabeth II's reign that Parliament was dissolved?

Quote from: LouisFerdinand on March 08, 2022, 08:08:49 PM
Is 1974 the only year of Queen Elizabeth II's reign that Parliament was dissolved?

1974 was an exceptional year. Read the article I posted earlier though.

In theory, if there has been a general election and the Party hitherto in power is not able to cobble together a coalition with (a) minor Party or Parties then that Party has lost power in the Commons and the PM must resign, leading to the Opposition being asked by the sovereign to form govt.

If that proves undoable then another election is called. That is usually when Parliament is dissolved by the Sovereign. However Heath (a very stubborn man facing revolts from within his own Party, the Conservatives, and facing a probable leadership challenge), seemed determined to hold on to power by hook or by crook. He did not succeed.


From the article I linked below.

?Whereas four general elections in the first half of the 20th century left no party with a majority in parliament, in the second half, every election except one delivered a majority to either the Conservatives or Labour.

The Queen?s role

The exception was in February 1974, when Labour emerged as the largest party but without a majority. A contemporary record of the negotiations that led to Harold Wilson forming a minority Labour government articulated a number of principles regarding the Queen?s role.

That the sitting prime minister, Edward Heath, had the constitutional right to remain in office until parliament met, even though his party had secured fewer seats than Labour and he was not yet in a position to guarantee that he would be able to command a working majority with the support of other parties.

The Queen should not be required to take action until the sitting prime minister had tendered his resignation.

While she should not be involved in the negotiations leading to a new administration, she should be kept fully informed of the developing situation via her private secretary.?

Why the Royals need to move on from Prince Andrew and 'Megxit' - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TssKFdufyM)

QuoteThree recent controversies threaten to overshadow this year's Jubilee celebrations: Prince Andrew's 'sexual assault' case, Prince Charles' cash for honours investigation and Prince Harry's upcoming memoir.

Each of these three issues generates a huge amount of coverage which may well detract from the usual wave popularity associated with Jubilee celebrations.

In the latest episode of Royal Insight, The Telegraph's Associate Editor Camilla Tominey explains why it will be so important for the Royals to move past these controversies.

(https://yt3.ggpht.com/0ujIhbF7Uw2e5fttRWhEeMywJfbSGy3SeKn6pwLEmQ4VkPgrlG83diAwEuMadMjHbtjmaLOiS3YOIQI=s640-nd-v1)

Well, whoever was polled doesn?t have to worry because the last thing the Sussexes would want would be to go back to the UK under any circumstances to join any working royal roundup.

This sort of question is reminiscent of the British tabloids who have been screaming since 2019 that the couple are getting no work, they?re running out of money, Harry never smiles, is never happy, is missing the UK etc. All of which is palpably untrue.

Quote from: wannable on March 16, 2022, 02:31:59 PM
(https://yt3.ggpht.com/0ujIhbF7Uw2e5fttRWhEeMywJfbSGy3SeKn6pwLEmQ4VkPgrlG83diAwEuMadMjHbtjmaLOiS3YOIQI=s640-nd-v1)

I realize that there's been some stories circulating that the PoW would like to offer the Sussexes are role in his reign, but at this point in time I don't see it happening at all. As far as I can tell they don't want to return to that life again and if they wanted to, it would have happened during the one year review was up. Now  on the very off chance that  the couple ever choose to return full time to the UK, I'd see them at the most taking on a role that is similar to their cousins Beatrice and Eugenie. Meaning  they're present at all of the wider public family events: the next couple of coronations, funerals, weddings,  Trooping, Ascot, the occasional BP garden party while acting as patron to their current patronages/charities that they've retained.
However I really don't see them choosing to leave California at this point in time or the near future.

How the Royal family is changing before our very eyes - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS582XyCUFk&list=PLJnf_DDTfIVBv5JIlO5ih5bNVPrI6fyVv&index=1)

QuoteThe Queen's reduced mobility has forced some significant concessions to the Royal calendar and has significantly changed the nature of her engagements.

At 95, it's hardly surprising that the monarch has had to prioritise quality over quantity when it comes to the Royal diary.

Equally, the future heirs to the throne have played a significant role by stepping up and filling in for the head of state.

But in the aftermath of the Cambridges' Caribbean tour, as well as the departure of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, it has become increasingly evident just how different the monarchy will be in the future.

In April's episode of Royal Insight, The Telegraph's Associate Editor Camilla Tominey analyses the future of the monarchy.

I somehow missed the 2022 YouGov Quarter One Popularity Poll for the BRF- January-March 2022.

The most popular royalty in the UK | Politics | YouGov Ratings (https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all)
In order of popularity for all adults: 1. QEII 2. William 3. Phillip 4. Catherine 5. Anne 6. Charles 7. Sophie 8. Camilla 9. Zara 10. Edward. 11. Harry 12.  Beatrice .  13. Eugenie 14. Meghan 15. Andrew.

You Gov needs to remove: Phillip-deceased.

That latest YouGov poll is ridiculous. A dead man on it (and gone for over a year) and six non working royals!

I agree @Curryong.  I don't understand why the DoE is still an option?

Writer Tina Brown has some "suggestions" for the PoW when his reign begins. IMO the one that seems to be the easiest to implement would be Prince Andrew moving to another part of the UK.

archive.ph (https://archive.ph/jKXb9)

QuoteIt?s 2030. King Charles is on the throne, with Queen Camilla by his side. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are touring the country, shoring up the Union. The Duke of York is wiling away his days in Cornwall, out of sight and temptation. The Sussexes are back as working royals, touring the world to promote ?the new Commonwealth?, of which Charles is no longer head of state. ?The Firm? has never looked more modern and its credit rating is higher than anyone dared to imagine after Charles?s coronation. Wishful thinking by arch-monarchists? No. This is what the woman who wrote the book on the royals thinks could happen, provided the monarchy plays its cards right.

A recent YouGov poll on who will make a better king in the future-Charles or William the poll includes the views of those who would prefer to have an elected Head of State.

Who will be a better monarch: the Queen, Prince Charles or Prince William? | YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2022/05/31/who-will-be-better-monarch-queen-prince-charles-or)

And today's YouGov poll on which of the Wales' brothers is the best role model for young people. A similar poll was taken in 2012 for the Diamond Jubilee. There are the expected divisions between the age groups.

Britons see Prince William as a good role model but are split over Prince Harry | YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/05/31/britons-see-prince-william-good-role-model-are-spl)

YouGov's latest poll before the start of Jubilee events this week

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/05/31/16/58509929-10871075-image-a-48_1654012352925.jpg)

Why is Prince Henry being considered a role model? He stepped away from royal duties. If he wanted a private life, why is he forever in the news?

He is not, thankfully forever in the news.  but it was always likely that he would be in the news in spite of claiming to want a private life.  how else can he make a living?

As my friends have said to me.....*we are so damn glad William was born first*, William rose to the challenge and made his family proud of him for the way he is tackling the responsibility of a future king....Harry is a spoiled brat who wants what he wants when he wants something as shown by his actions and behavior......let Harry and wifey stay in Ca doing what they do best.....and not saying what they do best as it is not printable here........ :wacko:

According to YouGovUk, King Charles III is enjoying a boost in how the UK views him and his prospects as a monarch. The Queen Consort is also being viewed more favorably as she begins her new role. Interestingly 1-3 Britons believe that King Charles should consider abdication at some point in the future.

Britons? first impressions of King Charles III | YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/09/13/britons-first-impressions-king-charles-iii)

QuoteThree quarters think he has provided good leadership in the aftermath of the Queen?s death, and three in five expect him to be a good king

With King Charles monarch for just a few days now, a new YouGov/Times survey shows that attitudes towards the new king have already shifted substantially.

Asked how they anticipate his reign, 63% say they think Charles will do a good job as king, with only 15% thinking he will do a bad one. This is a marked improvement for the new monarch: in a survey in May Britons were split 32% to 32% on whether or not the-then Prince Charles would make a good king.

QuoteBritons also think that Camilla ? now Queen Consort ? will do a good job in her new role, at 53% to 18%.

One of King Charles?s first acts as monarch was to address the nation about the passing of his mother. Three in five Britons say they saw or heard the King?s speech, with almost universal approval ? 94% of those say it was a good speech.

This is the honeymoon period, when public sorrow for the late Queen and for the new monarch and his family is at its height. Wait until after the Coronation when things have settled down a bit, say mid 2024, before we see the less ecstatic feelings of the British public towards Charles and Camilla, especially the latter.

I remember the feeling of magic and excitement in the air around the Queen?s accession and Coronation. That feeling didn?t evaporate much until 1954-55, and even then the Queen had the advantage of being attractive, with a young and handsome husband and two young children.

Charles and Camilla do not have those and are a couple well into their 70s already. Wait until the first time Charles is said to have meddled in something political or Camilla?s state of health deteriorates meaning less engagements, or Charles?s  extravagant way of life and excessive air travel starts to bite. There will always be something. 

We shall see. His first speech as King was so amazing he has new fans 😍

Yes hopefully he will do a great job.

I am sure he will improve DOL, Sandringham, Balmoral and SG. He is great with that.

Everything else is, will he write letters to PMs 😭 like he promised NI today he will pledge for welfare. The only way is writing ✍️

There?s already backlash from the public about Andrew being allowed to wear a uniform for the Vigil in London and another one re redundancy notices for over 100 Clarence House staff, many of whom have worked there for over a decade.

He can?t do anything about the 100. Or he is too excessive or a backlash.

Andrew is the son of the Queen. I?ll leave it there.

2 minor problems that have no right way.

I would like to think that there are bigger things to worry about then a darn uniform for either Andrew or Harry as after all that uniform is all about their egos and how they see themselves.   :laugh10:


Please give Charles a darn break......bashing him while he is burying his mother and taking on and doing all the duties required of him .......good grief!  Thrown that darn pen across the room if I was him..no wonder he is frustrated now, he needs deep sleep and a great home cooked meal and no phones or TV for 24 hours...recharge is needed by him and Camilla before he has a darn heart attack.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FdMLLuAX0AEKBJJ?format=jpg&name=small)

The purple hues are positive
The orange hues are negative

The lighter purple hue, the individual has to work on it to keep it rather than have it fall to orange
Same goes with the lighter orange hue, the individual should improve to make it a purple hue.

Camilla?s figures aren?t so great.

And why is YouGov still including those who have left the working royals in these polls? Supposedly they?re including everyone in the BRF so where are Eugenie and Beatrice on this chart, and Lady Louise?  Not to mention the Wessexes, the Kents and the Gloucesters.

I think they should have added Anne, Edward and Sophie IF the theme was to poll working and ex working royals.

Camilla is in the safe zone  adding the purple hues to 55%.  All light purple hues have to be worked hard to maintain it or else, bad news. Camilla's 37, Charles 40, The Institution of the Monarchy 37 light purple hues could go anyway from equal to better or bad, it all depends on the foursome work tied to national interests tied to behaviour too (Charles, Camila, William and Catherine)

The monarchy sees a minor improvement in public opinion | YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/09/17/monarchy-sees-minor-improvement-public-opinion)

Large divergence once again in the stance of young Britain versus the old towards the monarchy.

There continues to be an enormous generational difference in attitudes to the monarchy. While fully 86% of Britons aged 65 and over say we should continue to have a monarchy, this falls to just 47% among 18-24 year olds. Even this latter figure is probably temporarily inflated by current events: just 33% had voiced their desire to keep the crown in May, at the time of the Platinum Jubilee, and the average figure from 2020 onwards prior to the Queen?s death had been 35%.

Popularity of all royals.

The most popular royalty in the UK | Politics | YouGov Ratings (https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all)

Quote from: TLLK on September 18, 2022, 12:29:56 AM
According to The Sunday Telegraph, reportedly King Charles would like to have the governing which members of the BRF qualify as Counsellors of State amended. Currently the Counsellors of State are the following: Queen Consort, PoW, DoS, DoY and Pss Beatrice. Reportedly KCIII would prefer to have working members of the family as CoS.

King Charles to seek to amend laws which would relieve Harry, Andrew & Beatrice of constitutional role ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/wales/king-charles-to-seek-to-amend-laws-which-would-relieve-harry-andrew-beatrice-of-royal-duties-181317/)

It is happening. The first official and formal discussion yesterday.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-10-24/debates/AD3AEDE1-B3AE-4492-91B6-6A61D1C793E0/RegencyAct1937?highlight=%22regency%20act%22#contribution-B204D117-DE7C-4E21-B146-039CC02941B1

In the House of Lords today, there was a question about reforming the Regency Acts. Government did not rule out making changes, but really rule it in. I think this was the first time the issue of Princes Harry & Andrew being Counsellors of State has been raised in Parliament.

Apparently the process was started under the Queen. Rather than remove individuals the plan seems to be to add Edward and Anne. Either way the message is clear.

the Palace plan to sideline Harry and Andrew, writes ROBERT HARDMAN  | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11354319/How-question-House-Lords-revealed-Palace-plan-sideline-Harry-Andrew.html)

I had read recently that there is proposed legislation to alter the current the Counsellors of State and the link and the article below refer to it. Also it's reported that the late Queen had already give approval to the measure.  Currently the CoS are the following: The Queen Consort and the four adults over the age of 21 who closest in the line of succession: PoW, DoS, DoY, and Princess Beatrice.

Here's the exchange that took place in the House of Lords on Oct. 24, 2022 regarding the Regency Act of 1937.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-10-24/debates/AD3AEDE1-B3AE-4492-91B6-6A61D1C793E0/RegencyAct1937#main-content

The Daily Telegraph had covered this back in September.

QuoteIt is believed that the King recognises the incongruity of having a trio of non-working Royals able to step into his shoes if he is abroad or incapacitated.

archive.ph (https://archive.ph/HwZMr)

the Palace plan to sideline Harry and Andrew, writes ROBERT HARDMAN  | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11354319/How-question-House-Lords-revealed-Palace-plan-sideline-Harry-Andrew.html)

QuoteMinisters and senior Palace officials are now finalising plans to avoid any future prospect of the Dukes of Sussex or York being involved in affairs of state in the absence of the King.

Under proposals expected to come before Parliament, possibly within weeks, the King will be able to draw on a wider pool of royal substitutes ? not least the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex ? to conduct routine constitutional duties when he is out of the country.

The Mail has learned that these proposals were already being considered some months ago, with the approval of the late Queen. Monday's parliamentary reply from the Leader of the Lords, Lord True, suggests that reform may be imminent.

The urgency is due to the fact that the King and Queen Consort will be undertaking their first overseas visits in the coming months. While the PoW and PssB would be enough, there is an opinion that the CoS should be from the working group of royals. If the DoS, DoY, and PssB were to be removed they'd likely be replaced with EoW, PssR and DoG.

QuoteAt present, when the monarch is absent for whatever reason, state business ? such as approvals for most appointments and legislation ? can be conducted by two Counsellors of State.

Under the terms of the Regency Acts of 1937 and 1953, these can be appointed from the four most senior adults in the line of succession, plus the consort of a monarch. Today, that means the Queen Consort, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Sussex, the Duke of York and Princess Beatrice.

Under the proposals in hand, the King would be able to extend that list at his discretion, with the option to include his two other siblings, Anne and Edward.

This rumoured action has been seen by some observers as a move specifically to remove Harry and Andrew from the list of Counsellors of State. Not using non working members of the RF is an option of course, and that includes Beatrice. However it doesn?t look as if removal of those already there, which constitutionally has to be the first four adults in the line of succession (ie William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice) is what is proposed.

In fact removal  of anyone as C of S  is not what Hardman is suggesting in this article. Specifically Hardman is suggesting extensions not removals.
He writes
?Rather than amend legislation to exclude any specific individuals, so the thinking goes, it makes much more sense simply to expand the options available to the King?.

Such a move would also mean there could be no suggestion of targeting anyone. And in fact under this proposal  if Harry was in the country and in Windsor (a distinct possibility in 2023) he and William could act together.

As I posted in another thread early today It is not a rumor. Official and formal discussion.

Parliament will use the same sentence as vandalism and destruction of public and or private property. The little slap note 📝 is not enough.

The EU jail them with huge bail fines.

Quote from: wannable on October 26, 2022, 12:36:35 AM
As I posted in another thread early today It is not a rumor. Official and formal discussion.

It is a rumour until there is a formal announcement on behalf of the King. And this move appears to extend Counsellors of State to two or three more but also not get rid of any already there.

It is in the parliament discussion as posted.

Quote from: wannable on October 26, 2022, 12:46:55 AM
It is in the parliament discussion as posted.

Well, we shall see. A couple of questions in the House of Lords, not the Commons. doesn?t constitute a complete and extensive discussion. And ultimately it will be the King who makes the final decision about the make up of Counsellors of State not Parliament.

Quote from: wannable on October 26, 2022, 12:41:56 AM
Parliament will use the same sentence as vandalism and destruction of public and or private property. The little slap note 📝 is not enough.

The EU jail them with huge bail fines.

And what does this post  mean? Is this post in the correct thread? Because it doesn?t make any sense with regard to the current discussion in this thread.

By expanding the list it means Harry and Andrew won't be needed, which is the point. Neither one carries out anything official on behalf of the monarchy or government. It would be pretty bizarre then to call on either to sign off on government business. Same for Beatrice.

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on October 26, 2022, 01:00:47 AM
By expanding the list it means Harry and Andrew won't be needed, which is the point. Neither one carries out anything official on behalf of the monarchy or government. It would be pretty bizarre then to call on either to sign off on government business. Same for Beatrice.

I addressed that in my original post. However there have been rejoicings in the Anti Sussexes camp for weeks that Harry was going to be unceremoniously kicked out of remaining as a Counsellor of State (thereby humiliating him.) And that does not, judging by this latest article appear to be going to happen.

We don't know what in the regency act will be amended. The Telegraph reports Charles wants only working royals which would mean they will be removed. Or as the Mail reports the list will be expanded. I think either way the message is clear that Harry, Andrew and Beatrice won't be used as CoS for obvious reasons. 

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on October 26, 2022, 01:18:08 AM
We don't what in the regency act will be amended. The Telegraph reports Charles wants only working royals which would mean they will be removed. Or as the Mail reports the list will be expanded. I think either way the message is clear that Harry, Andrew and Beatrice won't be used as CoS for obvious reasons.

However Counsellors of State are hardly used anyway. With digital communications and modern travel the way it is today the situation in 1974 when the QM and Margaret declared a State of Emergency and dissolved Parliament in the absence of the Queen and Duke overseas (Ted Heath?s Govt crumbled and there was a debilitating miners strike) would not be repeated today. That was the last time C-of-S affected Govt operations.

Charles opened Parliament accompanied by William as the late Queen was unwell was the last time two C of S were used together. In neither of those cases would Anne or the Duke of Gloucester or Edward have been utilised anyway.

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on October 26, 2022, 01:18:08 AM
We don't know what in the regency act will be amended. The Telegraph reports Charles wants only working royals which would mean they will be removed. Or as the Mail reports the list will be expanded. I think either way the message is clear that Harry, Andrew and Beatrice won't be used as CoS for obvious reasons. 

I believe that it is best to have the working BRF members as oS as they aremore familiar with the demands of the role and the day to day function of the Firm.

While Harry and Andrew have past experience as CoS, both gave stepped back from senior royal duties.  Beatrice has never been part of that group and is more or less a private citizen. On the other hand, Edward, Anne and Richard have decades of experience as working royals. 

Quote from: Curryong on October 26, 2022, 01:06:19 AM
I addressed that in my original post. However there have been rejoicings in the Anti Sussexes camp for weeks that Harry was going to be unceremoniously kicked out of remaining as a Counsellor of State (thereby humiliating him.) And that does not, judging by this latest article appear to be going to happen.

Why is it humilating to take away (and make a new rule) of an ex senior working royal to be ousted completely from all and any monarchy related ''job''. 

I resigned a job, I don't get to be part or stay in any way shape or form in anything related to that! company".  Same happens to people who are fired.

Quote from: wannable on October 26, 2022, 11:35:41 AM
Why is it humilating to take away (and make a new rule) of an ex senior working royal to be ousted completely from all and any monarchy related ''job''. 

I resigned a job, I don't get to be part or stay in any way shape or form in anything related to that! company".  Same happens to people who are fired.

When you left your job you didn?t have the world?s media dissecting it all and rejoicing at every setback in your new life in another country. You didn?t have journalists, ?royal experts?, commentators and authors insulting and belittling you at every turn in the world?s media.

Let?s not pretend that thousands in Tumblir, Twitter, SM of all kinds, as well as the above people wouldn?t be heartily rejoicing if Harry was no longer a C of S. You and I and everyone else knows different. The British media and others have been calling for the Sussexes titles to be pulled, though that hasn?t happened. Same thing. That?s the humiliation I?m talking about. It?s different for Beatrice if she is replaced. She is neither as high up in the line of succession as Harry, not does she get one tenth of the negative press, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.

He trashed the BRF publicly not once but multiple times. Their lies have been caught and went global because of the multiple times. 

He has been very outspoken about the very profound dislike working for the Monarchy, he should be happy then to get rid of the last vestige of his previous job.

Except, according to the latest reports no C of S is going to be replaced, just the numbers extended, one of them rumoured to be a 72 year old who was herself none too popular for several decades. I have a long memory. She was called Princess Grumpy and Princess Misery for years because she hardly ever smiled on engagements, told the Press off on occasions and was frequently exceedingly ungracious as a royal representative of the monarchy.

Is Princess Anne as Miserable as Everyone Thinks? (https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/princess-anne-rude-personality.html/)

My POV is it doesn't matter if she's 72, grumpy, FilInTheArchetypes, she is a working royal, trustworthy to the Monarchy and HM UK Government, is what really matters.  Both the Monarchy and HM UK Government can't have a Pedo or public known trasher as counsellor.  The act has to be changed in such a way that there is 'retirement or forced retirement (fired), that simply and simplifies work with the modern times, 21st century, etc.

As I quoted yesterday from Craig Prescott, a well known and very famous Constitutional Lawyer in the UK it is not a question of IF but When 'ruling in'. He says it will happen, sooner than thought, perhaps before Charles and Camilla's next overseas tour.

Craig Prescott may be a well known British constitutional lawyer (even though Britain has no written constitution and in fact operates mainly on custom and precedent.) However that does not mean that Prescott has the King?s ear, or that he knows what King Charles will decide to do.

Adding Anne and Edward makes so much sense!  Removing the Duke of Sussex also makes sense, since he chose to leave his Royal Work and has gone somewhat rogue, at least at this time, and has made a new life in the States.  I am ambivalent about Andrew - I agree he has extremely bad judgement, but I think Virginia Juffre's claims are sketchy at best.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63391630

King Charles expands Counsellors of State list to spare Harry and Andrew | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1688107/prince-harry-andrew-spared-humiliation-king-charles-councillors-of-state)
Articles says Dukes of York and Sussex remain as counselor of state when King Charles and Queen Camilla was in oversea Prince William is in charge

QuotePrincess Anne, Prince Edward, the Princess of Wales ? so no one will be removed.

The Counsellors of State list includes a host of high-profile royals who can act in the sovereign's place if they cannot carry out their duties.

At present, there are three existing Counsellors serving under King Charles.

They include William, the Prince of Wales, Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex and Prince Andrew, the Duke of York.

Charles also once served as a Counsellor of State under the late Queen Elizabeth II, meaning the list is one royal shorter.

Princess Anne, Prince Edward, and Kate, the Princess of Wales, will bring the list up to five new members.

Counsellors carry out "most of the official duties of the Sovereign", the Royal Family website clarifies.

Duties can include attending Privy Council meetings, document signings and "receiving the credentials of new ambassadors to the United Kingdom".

The site adds that they cannot carry out some select actions, including:

1.Handling Commonwealth matters
2.Dissolving Parliament (unless expressly directed by the sovereign)
3.Creating peers
4.Appointing a new Prime Minister

The news follows advice from royal commentator Angela Levin to sideline Princes Andrew and Harry.

Posting on Twitter, she said the King should keep the two royals out of the limelight for different reasons.

Ms Levin said Prince Harry has now departed the inner working ranks.

And Prince Andrew remains unpopular following news of his association with Jeffrey Epstein.

She wrote: "It makes total sense to sideline Princes Andrew and Harry. Harry is no longer a working royal."

"Nor could he pop over at the last minute to stand in for his father.

"While citizens would not want Andrew standing in due to his relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein."

King Charles 'following through' with constitutional reform already approved by Queen | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1687975/king-charles-iii-news-counsellors-of-state-reform-queen-elizabeth-ii-prince-harry-andrew)

Princess Anne and Prince Edward tipped as 'obvious candidates' to become counsellors | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1687923/princess-anne-news-prince-edward-news-counsellors-of-state-prince-harry-prince-andrew)

https://www.itv.com/news/2022-10-26/plans-being-considered-to-increase-number-of-royals-able-to-stand-in-for-king

King Charles steps in to save Princes Andrew and Harry from being sacked from major job - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/breaking-king-charles-steps-save-28336375)

King Charles 'may make unprecedented change' to Kate Middleton's role - because of Harry - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/king-charles-may-make-unprecedented-28336371)

Princes Harry and Andrew may be sidelined from state affairs with new Palace proposal - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/harry-andrew-could-sidelined-state-28329432)

Prince Harry and Andrew's royal duties discussed in Parliament for the first time - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-harry-andrews-royal-duties-28326997)

King Charles decides not to strip Andrew and Harry from major role, as Edward and Anne handed new job | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/20234255/king-charles-andrew-and-harry-major-role/)

Changes to Regency Act raised in House of Lords ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/changes-to-regency-act-raised-in-house-of-lords-182751/)

IMVHO expanding the number of royals who are potential members to be Counsellors of State is a very diplomatic solution. While Catherine is not in the line of succession, like Camilla she's expected to play a role as a CoS in the future.

Adding Catherine makes perfect sense imo. William and Kate can work together and act as the 'regent couple' if called upon.

Yes, reading more about the Regent Act proposal (today, and very well explained), it's quicker, simpler and easier to add on rather than take away and state how and why/succession. 

I also agree adding Kate is a great idea. There will always be two the King can count on in UK soil when travelling or unwell.  Apparently this will be the second time in Regent Act history where there will be 5 or more Counsellors. 

Recent polling on King Charles III in the second month of his reign. I do wish that the Queen Consort had been included however I cannot find the original poll document.

More than a quarter of Britons say their opinion of Charles has improved since he became King | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11364935/More-quarter-Britons-say-opinion-Charles-improved-King.html)

QuoteA new poll found almost two thirds of Brits (58 per cent) think Charles III will be a good King, almost two months into his reign

Most, 59 per cent, have not changed their opinion of him since he came to the throne, but 24 per cent said they now like him more

Overall, 48 per cent of people in the country have a positive view of him

William and Catherine are hugely popular with the British public, with approval ratings of 70 and 72 per cent, respectively





Source: Redfield and Wilton Strategies

Those headlines at the top of the article are wrong for Harry as he is NOT under 40%. In fact he?s above Charles.  I too would love to know if this poll say anything about Camilla?s popularity (isn?t she mentioned, which would be a bit strange?) And what about the rest of the royals, the Wessexes for example. Redfield and Wilton aren?t exactly household names by the way.

Quote from: sara8150 on October 27, 2022, 03:10:29 AM
King Charles steps in to save Princes Andrew and Harry from being sacked from major job - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/breaking-king-charles-steps-save-28336375)

It is a magnanimous gesture from the King and with the added councilors Andrew and Harry will most likely never be called upon. Still, both Princes Andrew and Harry have shown poor judgement, and Harry left his royal role and lives outside the UK. IMO the case could certainly be made to exclude them.

 Considering this might have an impact on the wider BRF, I believe this is the appropriate place for the discussion.

The Prince of Wales wants to re-imagine and revamp some of the ways in which the BRf undertakes its engagements.  I have to agree that much of the media coverage during their engagements is focused primarily on the ladies fashion, facial expressions, body language and lip reading along with a repeat of the family's scandals ie: The Duke of York. Hard to say if it will work or not. Afterall, "walkabouts" and Diana's manner of engaging with the public were new at one point in time and now are a regular feature practiced by all generations of the BRF.

Prince William breaks the monotony of royal visits - but won?t wave away the past completely (https://archive.ph/mVJoH)

QuoteNot since Queen Elizabeth II invented the walkabout in 1970 has there been a major change to the way royal visits are conducted.
The format of official engagements has become so staid that reports of them often focus on fashion, gossip or the body language of the principals involved. The Prince of Wales, like other members of his family, is often frustrated at the coverage they get.
Having seen the way his mother Diana, Princess of Wales could generate worldwide publicity about Aids, landmines or leprosy simply through her presence, the Prince knows better than most just how much a visit from a member of the Royal family can be a force for good.
Though he lacks the sheer star power of his mother, the Prince has for years been determined to shift the dial on royal visits. His new idea of ?community impact days aims? to turn the concept on its head.
Instead of visiting deprived communities, giving them a day in the sun and then hoping money will be raised as a result, the Prince and Princess of Wales want to reverse the process by using the build-up to a visit to generate money, which they can then announce and disburse when they get there.It is something of a gamble because it will, in effect, put a cash sum on the value of royal visits. It is a gamble he is more than happy to take.

Royal aides say the two words the Prince has kept repeating as he has formulated his new idea are ?impact? and ?legacy?, reflecting the undeniable fact that he felt the traditional way of doing things was generating neither.
The pilot of the scheme in Scarborough on Thursday had been in the pipeline before Queen Elizabeth died, but the Prince?s elevation to heir to the throne has markedly increased his ability to put his own stamp on the royal way of doing things.
He has the blessing of the King, who shares his son?s desire to modernise. Both men know that they must pull off a delicate balancing act between maintaining traditions and moving with the times - something successive generations of the Royal family have agonised about since the end of the age of deference.
While the late Queen earned the public?s respect through her devotion to duty over 70 years on the throne, the King and the Prince are aware that neither of them will be on the throne for anything like as long as that - meaning they may need to prove their worth in other ways.

If the pilot is a success, we can expect impact days to become a regular fixture in the Prince and Princess?s diary.
Royal aides have spoken in the past of the Prince?s desire to focus on ?big bets?, rather than endless charity visits. But the Prince has had to readjust his sights in the aftermath of Megxit, which ruined his plans to use the Wales-Sussex ?fab four? to tackle the world?s ills.
Friends have said Megxit left him having to ?start from scratch? - and his impact days are one of the ideas to emerge from the ruins of his previous plans.
The Palace is anxious to make clear that impact days will not replace traditional visits, for two reasons.
The first is that they take months to organise, because teams from the Prince?s charity - the Royal Foundation - have to work with local organisations to raise money and plan how it will be spent.
The second is that the Prince recognises that simply being seen is a major part of his job if the monarchy is to retain its popularity.

It might work. However it all depends on maintaining the enthusiasm of local charities in these regions to raise their portion of moneys, though there will be no difficulty spending it! And what if The Royal Foundation disagrees with any decisions on spending by these local charities and can?t come to an agreement? Plus, count me cynical but I cannot imagine British tabloids not concentrating any more on royal hairstyles, clothing, photo ops simply because the fundraising focus has changed.

Yes I am curious to see how this will unfold. For the time being, I believe it will only impact the engagements involved with the Royal Foundation, but I'd be curious to see if in the future if KCIII, QC, PssR and the Wessexes adopt this plan as well.

Off topic but has there been any announcement about the Prince's Trust's future?

I haven?t read anything about the future of the Prince?s Trust, but Charles withdrew from much of the regular more hands on stuff after Prince Philip retired, due to multiple calls on his time. The Trust appears to have been run by the already functioning various committees since then and is generally semi-autonomous.

A wise decision to cancel the proposed replacement for Britannia in my opinion. Reportdly the BRF had not requested a replacement.

BREAKING: Plans for the new ?200m Royal Yacht are scrapped ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/interests/state/breaking-plans-for-the-new-200m-royal-yacht-are-scrapped-183195/)

QuotePrime Minister Rishi Sunak has scrapped controversial plans to commission a new Royal Yacht at an estimated cost of ?200,000,000.

Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced in May 2021 that a successor to the Royal Yacht Britannia would be built in memory of the late Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

However, speaking in the House of Commons, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said the plans are to be axed ?with immediate effect.?

Mr Wallace said: ?In the face of the Russian illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and Putin?s reckless disregard of international arrangements designed to keep world order, it is right that we prioritise delivering capabilities which safeguard our national infrastructure.?

Reacting to the news, Queen Elizabeth?s former press secretary Dickie Arbiter tweeted: ?From the Royal Family?s perspective, it was a non-starter anyway. They never wanted or even asked for a replacement.?

Yes, I think the plans for a new royal yacht surprised everyone, including the royals! It was a bit of a mad idea, I think we agreed at the time.

The King has written to the House of Lords requesting that the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex and Forfar be considered for the roles of Counsellor of State. IMHO this is the correct action to take so that the King has working members of the BRF to join with the Queen Consort and the Prince of Wales. Also it is IMO a more diplomatic solution than removing the DoY and DoS.

https://twitter.com/MattSunRoyal/status/1592186000960552960

QuoteBreaking: The King has written to House of Lords saying he?d be "most content" if number of Counsellors of State "be increased to include my brother and sister, the Princess Royal, and Earl of Wessex"

Statement was read out in the House of Lords this afternoon ⬇️
Image

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FhiUunRWAAEXJe_?format=jpg&name=small)

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/4a143e8e-24e4-467f-87f1-6dbe664a4a03?in=14:47:52

14:38:11
Message from the King

Lord Parker of Minsmere (Crossbench)

More information on this topic can be found in this article. Also I was reminded that the PssR and the EoW had previously served as Counsellors of State.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63626113

QuoteThe current counsellors are Camilla, the Queen Consort; Prince William, the Prince of Wales; Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex; Prince Andrew, Duke of York and his daughter, Princess Beatrice.

Both Princess Anne and Prince Edward have previously been counsellors of state, before being overtaken in the order of succession.

Counsellors can carry out official duties which could include the state opening of Parliament, signing documents, receiving ambassadors or attending Privy Council meetings, if the monarch is temporarily ill or abroad.

It is expected that the King and Queen and the Prince and Princess of Wales could be undertaking overseas visits next year, so counsellors could be a necessity when they are away.

Last month the issue was raised in the House of Lords, with Labour peer Viscount Stansgate challenging how Prince Andrew and Prince Harry could be two of the five replacements when one had "left public life" and the other had "left the country".

King Charles' snub will make Harry 'furious' as Anne and Edward to now deputise for monarch | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11426885/Princess-Royal-Prince-Edward-join-royals-like-Harry-Andrew-deputise-King-Charles.html)

King Charles III requests major change involving Princess Anne and Prince Edward | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20221114157006/royal-family-princess-anne-earl-of-wessex-deputising-king-charles/)

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63626113

King Charles asks parliament to appoint new deputies in place of Andrew and Harry | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/king-charles-asks-parliament-to-appoint-new-deputies-in-place-of-andrew-and-harry-12747646)
King Charles get rid of his son the Duke of Sussex and his brother the Duke of York as counselor of state due no longer work royals but only senior royal work what best change new faces of royals from past to present of King and Queen not since 1937 for 85 years back to King George VI

King Charles snubs Harry and Andrew as he hands out top royal roles to Edward and Anne | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1696526/King-Charles-snub-Prince-Harry-Andrew-royal-role-Edward-Princess-Anne-counsellor-of-state)

King Charles snubs Prince Andrew in new statement to Parliament after royal row - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/breaking-king-charles-snubs-prince-28488329)

Prince Harry KEEPS key role as King Charles shakes up duties within the Royal Family - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-harry-keeps-key-role-28488939)

Prince Harry & Andrew snubbed as King Charles reveals Royal Family shake-up with big promotions for Edward and Anne | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/20423188/harry-andrew-edward-anne-job-charles/)

King Charles asks Parliament for new Counsellors of State ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/king-charles-asks-parliament-for-new-counsellors-of-state-183479/)

Quote from: sara8150 on November 14, 2022, 10:20:27 PM
King Charles asks parliament to appoint new deputies in place of Andrew and Harry | UK News | Sky News (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11426885/Princess-Royal-Prince-Edward-join-royals-like-Harry-Anrew%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3E%5Burl=https://news.sky.com/story/king-charles-asks-parliament-to-appoint-new-deputies-in-place-of-andrew-and-harry-12747646)
King Charles get rid of his son the Duke of Sussex and his brother the Duke of York as counselor of state due no longer work royals but

Sara, Your comment that the King has ?gotten rid? of Harry and Andrew as Counsellors of State because they are not working royals is completely incorrect. Charles request to the House of Lords that Anne and Edward be permitted to be added as Counsellors never mentioned Harry or Andrew, let alone said that he wanted them removed. The newspapers have all printed Charles?s formal request so it is possible to read the text. Where does it say that Harry and Andrew have been removed? Nowhere!

And the Mirror?s allegation that Harry would be ?furious?  at the news is just a piece of speculation by one of their journalists. Harry would have been informed of the ADDITION (and that?s all it is)  of Anne and Edward as would Andrew and Beatrice, some time ago, not left to read it in the newspapers. Ridiculous!

Furious is total exaggeration. Harry not Andrew would like to be in charge during absence of the King.

But adding Anne and Edward IMO is clearly preferring and securing them if both King and POW are absent or incapacitated. 

Quote from: wannable on November 14, 2022, 11:54:03 PM
Furious is total exaggeration. Harry not Andrew would like to be in charge during absence of the King.

But adding Anne and Edward IMO is clearly preferring and securing them if both King and POW are absent or incapacitated.

Why would Harry like to be in charge if his father or brother were incapacitated? I would say that would be the last thing he?d be happy about.

And the last time such a situation as you?ve described occurred was more than a generation ago (before modern communications like computers and mobile phones when the Queen and Duke were halfway across the world) so I wouldn?t be holding my breath. Nowadays Privy Councils in the case of a national crisis can be Skyped at a couple of hours notice

Hence my comment. Harry nor Andrew would like. My iPhone keyboard sucks.

Fixed not for nor.

I think it is *Brilliant game work* of Charles to now make sure that there are more than enough counselors to be in charge if and when both he and William with their wives are out of the country at the same time......including Anne and Edward makes darn sure that neither Andrew or Harry will ever have the chance to be that...they don't have to kick them out or create drama by asking Parliament to let them go, just add more intelligent, hard working and very *loyal members* of the royal family as neither Andrew or Harry are that as they have shown by their actions and decisions while being working members of the royal family.

Quote from: Nightowl on November 15, 2022, 02:14:48 AM
I think it is *Brilliant game work* of Charles to now make sure that there are more than enough counselors to be in charge if and when both he and William with their wives are out of the country at the same time......including Anne and Edward makes darn sure that neither Andrew or Harry will ever have the chance to be that...they don't have to kick them out or create drama by asking Parliament to let them go, just add more intelligent, hard working and very *loyal members* of the royal family as neither Andrew or Harry are that as they have shown by their actions and decisions while being working members of the royal family.

Both Harry, and though I am loathe to say it Andrew, were loyal members of the armed forces of GB for decades, Harry for ten years, Andrew for over twenty, while also being working members of the RF. Both of them served in war zones while HM was Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of GB.

If they had acted in a traitorous fashion they would have been kicked out of the forces. And yes, it does require intelligence (and courage) to learn to fly helicopters and to fly them in war zones, which both did (in the Falklands War, Andrew, and in Afghanistan,Harry.)

And in what way is Anne super intelligent? She never went to University. Yes she was an equestrian Olympian which does require skill and intelligence, but she never served in the armed forces so has never had her loyalty and life put into question. As for Edward,  he left his Marines training course before it was finished and then trailed around in various theatrical pursuits including a failed TV programme making business until he and Sophie were put on the royal roster after the fake sheikh debacle, leaving a large debt by their companies. Intelligent?

Anne and Edward both now appear on ceremonial occasions wearing uniforms in which they haven?t served and with ?medals? on their chests mostly celebrating their mother?s various jubilees. No military medals among them. Noble? Hardly! Signs of super intelligence? Highly doubtful!

I don?t think that believing that any member of the RF is more intelligent than others, otherwise we might start looking at Camilla for example who didn?t go to university or serve in a war zone in a very expensive piece of military equipment. In fact, between leaving school and marrying Andrew PB she didn?t do much at all!

 :ugh:    :laugh10: Now onto better things once Andrew and Harry are set aside from being counselors.  Loyalty is not something they are good at, more so Harry who betrayed his country and told lies about his family along with this wife in front of the entire world. At least Andrew has kept his mouth shut and not lied about his family. If that was my brother who lied and betrayed his family the way Harry has done, he would be out in the cold forever.......you do not lie about your family in front of the entire world ever........what Harry did in the past is slowly being forgotten as what he does now is up front for everyone to see ......NObody can ever erase that interview with Oprah....it is out there forever..........they wanted privacy, so why aren't they private people......they NEED the royal family for one reason only.....to make MONEY off anyone that has it...even books.  The royal family is still doing the job as expected and they will continue as they are LOYAL to the country and the monarchy, where H/M don't even know the meaning of the word or the meaning of TRUST which is broken. 

Harry and Andrew aren?t ?set aside from being Counsellors at all. And in the future, if Charles and Camilla are out of the country and Harry is at FC at that time he?s likely to be used as a Counsellor, with William at Adelaide Cottage nearby.

Harry?s army service is not likely to ever be forgotten as it appears in every biography written on or about him and continues on in his work for vets and their families such as Invictus and Scotties.

The Wessexes have got royal duties because really they have very little to offer. The tabloids practically ignore Edward and Sophie as they consider them basically boring. So what they have got in their pasts will continue to be repeated in any biographical pieces on them. It was the greatest piece of good fortune for these two that the Sussexes left as otherwise, as the future King?s youngest brother and his wife, they would really have been on the back burner once the Queen passed.

Discussion of the Oprah Winfrey interview with the Sussexes has been moved to the thread linked below. Please continue it there. Further discussion about the Interview will be deleted. Please stay on topic which is the role of the British Monarchy, it's popularity and future. Thank you[/url]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex interviews, TV and other media events Part 2 (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=91970.0)

I stick with my opinion and I'm 99.9% sure Charles will never (William too when it's his Kingship) allow Harry or Andrew to head anything Monarchy related, be it a Privy Council or a signature. 

Both have disgraced themselves by their own mouth.  Harry hates the monarchy, hated his job, said he was forced to work duties. Andrew's close ties with Pedo Epstein, just that fact doomed him forever.

Harry in a early Better Up discussion (both the Sussexes talk too much, people might forget, understandably because it is just too much to keep track) he said after the host asked him about Jobs and Mental Health, he had quit the BRF/Monarchy...Harry:''If you don't like your job, quit''.

It brought a lot of controversy worldwide, 99% of the world population can't afford to quit their hated jobs. Harry belongs (or belonged, no one knows if the couple's finances are sound) to the 1%

The Counsellors of State Act of 2022 Bill has been sent to both Houses of Parliament.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-03/066/5803066_en_2.html#l1g1

Quote
    House of Commons
    House of Lords
    What's on
    Bills & legislation
    Committees
    Publications & records
    Parliament TV
    News
    Topics

Counsellors of State Bill [HL] (HL Bill 66)

Previous

Contents page1-2Last page

A

BILL

TO

Add His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex and Her Royal Highness The
Princess Royal to the persons to whom royal functions may be delegated as
Counsellors of State.

Whereas Your Majesty, by Your Majesty?s Royal Message to both Houses of
Parliament, has confirmed that Your Majesty would be most content, should
Parliament see fit, for the number of people who may be called upon to act as
Counsellors of State under the terms of the Regency Acts 1937 to 1953 to be increased
to include Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal and His Royal Highness The Earl
of Wessex and Forfar, both of whom have previously undertaken this role;

Now, therefore, we, Your Majesty?s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords
Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, do most
humbly beseech Your Majesty that it be enacted, and

Be it enacted by the King?s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and
consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present
Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:?
1 Additional Counsellors of State

(1)Section 6 of the Regency Act 1937 (power to delegate royal functions to
Counsellors of State) has effect as if the persons required by subsection (2) of
that section to be the Counsellors of State for the purposes of any delegation of
5
royal functions under that section included?

(a)His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex, during his lifetime, and

(b)Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal, during her lifetime.

(2)Any requirement imposed by subsection (1) is subject to the proviso in
subsection (2) of section 6 of that Act and to subsection (2A) of that section
10
(powers to except a person who is absent from the United Kingdom and
disqualification from being a Counsellor of State).

Counsellors of State Bill [HL]Page 2
2 Short title and commencement

(1)This Act may be cited as the Counsellors of State Act 2022.

(2)This Act comes into force on the day after it is passed.

ROBERT HARDMAN: Princes Harry and Andrew sidelined by King's new deputising rule | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11427535/ROBERT-HARDMAN-Princes-Harry-Andrew-sidelined-Kings-new-deputising-rule.html)

King Charles Taps Princess Anne and Prince Edward for Elevated Roles (https://people.com/royals/princess-anne-prince-edward-tapped-new-royal-roles-consellors-state-prince-harry-prince-andrew/)

QuoteThe Regency Act of 1937 lays out who stands in for a Monarch in a range of situations where they can?t exercise their functions. It came into force in the first year of the reign of King George VI, when his heir was a ten year old princess called Elizabeth. Now, George VI?s grandson has asked the House of Lords to amend it. King Charles III wants his sister and brother added to the list of those who can act as Counsellors of State. It wouldn?t be the first time the rules have been altered. Royal Central outlines what that means for the current House of Windsor.

When can a regent be appointed?

There are several circumstances in which the Act permits the implementation of a Regency. Listed first in this Act is the accession of an underage Monarch. If the throne passes to someone aged under eighteen, then a regent is appointed to rule for them until they reach the age of eighteen.

The second circumstance is the incapacity of the Monarch. If it is decided that they cannot carry out their functions, a regent is appointed until they are deemed capable of taking on their responsibilities again.

Who can be regent?

In its most simple interpretation, the Regency Act says that the next adult in the line of succession is regent providing they a British subject and resident in the United Kingdom. So in the case of King Charles III needing a regent, The Prince of Wales would step in. However, should Prince William or his children need a regent, the role would pass to The Duke of Sussex.

Adult has two interpretations in this Act. Ordinarily, a regent must be aged 21 or over. However, the heir to the throne can act as regent from the age of 18 onwards.

Who can?t be regent?

The spouse or parent of a Monarch doesn?t necessarily have a role in their regency. The role must pass to someone in the line of succession. If a regent is deemed incapable or dies in office, the next adult in the succession who meets the criteria set out, takes their place. However, the guardianship of a Monarch under the age of 18 rests with their surviving parent while the guardianship of a ruler declared incapable rests with their spouse, if they have one.

What changes have been made to the Act?

In 1953, following the succession of The Queen, a change was made that allowed The Duke of Edinburgh to rule as regent should one of their children ascend the throne as a minor. Those changes ceased to have an effect once their children had reached adult age.

What else does the Act provide for?

The role of Counsellors of State was part of the 1937 Act. This is the mechanism which allows two of five people to exercise power if the Monarch is temporarily out of action. Currently, the Monarch?s spouse and the first four adults in the line of succession can carry out the role meaning Queen Camilla, The Prince of Wales, the Duke of Sussex, the Duke of York and Princess Beatrice can all be called on to exercise the function. That?s proved controversial as three of the five aren?t working royals. Furthermore, the Duke of Sussex lives in the United States and the Duke of York has withdrawn completely from public life following a court case.

Now, King Charles has asked Parliament to amend the Act and allow his sister, the Princess Royal, and his youngest brother, the Earl of Wessex, to also be available as Counsellors of State. Both have exercised the role before.

If Parliament agrees, and it?s likely that it will and that changes will happen within months, it won?t be the first time an amendment has taken place. There was an alteration to this part of the Act following the death of King George VI with provision being made for Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother to continue to be able to exercise the function of Counsellor of State.

Inside the Regency Act 1937 ? Royal Central (https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/inside-the-regency-act-1937-2-183488/)
Not since back to 1937 for 85 years of King George VI succession rules but Dukes of Sussex and York remain counselor of state because Harry and Andrew no longer work royals because Andrew been related to disgrace Jeffrey Epstein and Harry resigned top royals work and move to USA across pond from UK King Charles says Andrew and Harry will not stripped dukedom according to sun newspaper

The House of Lords is introducing a bill to bar Princes Harry and Andrew from ever serving as Counsellors of State. Now this is taking the matter further than KCIII had proposed. IMO is a potential issue as it would effectively bar not only the DoS and DoY but also Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie from ever serving in this role. The next eligible CoS who are working royals who have carried out duties in a period of two years are of course the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wesex but then it's: the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent along with Princess Alexandra.

Lords to debate law to bar Princes Harry and Andrew from being Counsellors of State (https://archive.ph/Y9HkR)

QuoteThe House of Lords will debate a change in legislation that would effectively ban Prince Harry and Prince Andrew from being Counsellors of State.
The amendment to the Counsellors of State bill, which will be debated on Monday, would look to exclude royals who have ?not in the immediately preceding 2 years undertaken royal duties on a regular basis?.
The Duke of Sussex formally stepped down from royal duties on March 31, 2020, while the Duke of York ceased to undertake public duties after his military affiliations and royal patronages were returned to Queen Elizabeth II at the start of this year.
A Cabinet source told The Telegraph that it was neither the Government, nor Buckingham Palace?s position, that the proposal would remove either of the princes from being Counsellors of State.
The prospect of the princes being called upon to sign documents or receive the credentials of new ambassadors at Buckingham Palace has been controversial for some time, with the issue first raised in Parliament last month.
Viscount Stansgate, Labour peer and son of party grandee Tony Benn, suggested in the House of Lords that it was the right moment to discuss ?a sensible amendment? with the King.
He asked whether the Government was ?happy to continue with a situation where the counsels of state and regency powers may be exercised by the Duke of York or the Duke of Sussex, one of whom has left public life and the other of whom has left the country??
The King made the specific request that the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex be made Counsellors of State, after he enacted a process agreed with his late mother to keep the family peace.
In a statement read to both Houses of Parliament last week, the King signalled his wish for the Regency Act to be amended to allow his two siblings to deputise for him when required.
The move is designed to ensure the Duke of York and the Duke of Sussex will never be called upon to act as official stand-ins, without having to formally replace them.The King's statement
The King's statement was first read to the House of Lords by Lord Parker of Minsmere, the Lord Chamberlain, who said: ?The message is as follows: ?To ensure continued efficiency of public business when I am unavailable, such as while I am undertaking official duties overseas, I confirm that I would be most content, should Parliament see fit, for the number of people who may be called upon to act as Counsellors of State under the terms of the Regency Acts 1937 to 1953 to be increased to include my sister and brother - the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex and Forfar - both of whom have previously undertaken this role.?
The monarch can appoint two Counsellors of State to conduct official business in their absence using letters patent.
Under the Regency Acts of 1937 and 1953, they are the spouse of a monarch and the next four in line to the throne who are aged over 21. This currently would include the Queen Consort, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Sussex, the Duke of York and Princess Beatrice, only two of whom are working royals.

Whether they are explicitly excluded or not, the message is clear, they won't ever be called upon in any official capacity. 

Great amendment with a lot of sense. So they can keep the counsellors of state (I've heard it's much harder to take anyone out now and future/line of succession), add ons are super easy, and amendment are super easy too -  aren't doing ''duties regularly'' past 2 years to date aka working royal, excluded to being called upon.

Prince Harry
Prince Andrew
Princess Beatrice

A very intelligent move by Charles, in fact perfect.  Andrew nor Harry will ever be called upon to perform those duties now yet they will stay at the bottom of the list.   :yesss:

Anne is one smart lady who suffers no fools and Edward is very hard working and extremely loyal and that is just the type of people that Andrew and Harry are........fools that just want the perks and money.

The Counsellors of State Bill was passed by the House of Lords yesterday without amendment.
Transcripts of the Bill in chronological order are linked below.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2022-11-23/debates/07AEF617-425F-48C1-80F5-8DC3C0F0E8C7/CounsellorsOfStateBill(HL
https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2022-11-23/debates/605B20FA-1260-402A-8771-FE084B12EE3F/CounsellorsOfStateBill(HL

Quote from: TLLK on November 24, 2022, 03:00:52 PM
The Counsellors of State Bill was passed by the House of Lords yesterday without amendment.
Transcripts of the Bill in chronological order are linked below.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2022-11-23/debates/07AEF617-425F-48C1-80F5-8DC3C0F0E8C7/CounsellorsOfStateBill(HL
https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2022-11-23/debates/605B20FA-1260-402A-8771-FE084B12EE3F/CounsellorsOfStateBill(HL

Yes, it was swiftly passed. The Governing body just stated that there was no precedent for removing any Counsellors and the King had not requested any. By the way, the bill went to the Lords first probably because the new Lord Chamberlain, the first of the King?s reign, presented it.

YouGov UK's recent popularity poll after the new release of the Crown Season 5.

25 years after her death, Princess Diana is more popular than King Charles, and the monarchy | YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/11/24/25-years-after-her-death-princess-diana-more-popul)

Quotehe fifth season of hit royal drama The Crown launched last week, with this season focussing heavily on the tumultuous relationship between Princess Diana and the then Prince Charles.

To see how the late Princess?s reputation has held up over the years, we included Diana on the latest YouGov royal favourability tracker. The results show that, more than a quarter of a century after her death, Princess Diana?s legacy remains strong, and she is still more popular than her former husband and the monarchy in general.

Seven in ten Britons (72%) have a positive view of Princess Diana, including 34% who have a ?very positive? opinion.

By contrast, two thirds (67%) have a positive view of King Charles, and 60% have a favourable opinion of the institution of the monarchy in general. Only a quarter (25%) have a ?very? positive view of Charles, and just 20% say the same of the monarchy.

QuoteWhile Princess Diana?s ratings are overwhelmingly positive among all age groups, those aged 50 and above are more likely to take a negative view of her, at 25-26%, compared to 13% of 25-49 year olds and 9% of 18-24 year olds. Those aged 25-49 are the most likely to have a positive opinion of Princess Diana, at 79%.

Seven in ten 18-24 year olds (70%) also have a positive view of Diana, but they are more likely than other age groups to say ?don?t know?, at 21%. While on the face of it this may be unsurprising, as even the oldest amongst this age group would not be born until a few months after her death, this (lack of) awareness figure is actually the same as it is for the other top royals, demonstrating how far-reaching the late Princess?s legacy has proven.

QuotePrince William continues to be the most popular member of the royal family, with 81% holding a positive opinion of him (including 45% with a ?very positive? view). Catherine, Princess of Wales is not far behind, on 75%. In both cases, these figures are virtually unchanged from the previous survey in late September.

Likewise, having surged following his ascension to King, Charles? favourability ratings have now stabilised, with little difference between this survey and September?s.

By contrast, Prince Harry?s popularity has dipped slightly once again, having seen a 15pt uptick following the death of his grandmother Queen Elizabeth. Only four in ten (39%) have a favourable view of the Duke of Sussex, down six points since September. The number of people holding an unfavourable view has increased by the same amount in that time, to 52%.

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex continues to be less popular than her husband, with only 28% liking her, but this figure is effectively unchanged since September.

As ever, none can match Prince Andrew?s rock bottom unpopularity. Just 6% have a positive opinion of the Duke of York, while 85% have an unpopular opinion (including fully 67% who take a ?very negative? view of him).

In regards to Diana, like so many people around the world I was one who followed her and read everything I could get my hands on and bought so many books......yet over time I learned she had issues in life like most of us do.  I think today if she is so popular it is because so many still see a perfect princess who did try to help those in need, yet she was far from perfect.  Maybe many people still live that fairy-tale of her and Charles who was not perfect at all, neither should of married each. Time to move on and just keep the good memories where they belong.

Its because she was good looking and she died so younng.  If she were still around, she'd be over 60 and people might not be reading about her in Hello Magazine any more.  If she just dabbled in charity work, what would she be famous for other than her status as a Princess?

The Counsellors of State Bill has passed in the House of Commons and is now set to become law.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63824510

QuoteMPs have backed a new law allowing Princess Anne and Prince Edward to stand in for King Charles at official engagements.

The Counsellors of State Bill passed all its Commons stages and is now set to become law.

Princes Andrew and Harry remain on the list of stand-ins, even though both have stood down as working royals.

The Prince of Wales, Camilla, the Queen Consort, and Princess Beatrice are the other counsellors of state.

The legislation has been fast-tracked and cleared the Commons earlier on Thursday with MPs giving it a series of unopposed readings.

The King, the Queen Consort and Prince William are all expected to undertake overseas trips in the next 12 months- and without these additions, it was feared there could be a lack of available stand-ins for the monarch.

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Oliver Dowden, told the Commons: "This is a Bill that supports the monarch, our head of state, in discharging his constitutional duties.

"This Bill guarantees the continuity which we in government and Parliament depend upon to serve the British people."

The Counsellors of State Act 2022 received Royal Assent yesterday evening, which means there are now seven rather than five Counsellors of State: the Queen, Prince of Wales, Duke of Sussex, Duke of York, Princess Beatrice, Princess Royal & the Earl of Wessex and Forfar.

The formal Counsellor of State Act 2022

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjYzaWNWAAIALsx?format=jpg&name=small)

The Times requested a YouGov Survey after the Harry and Meghan series and after the unexpected early preview of Spare.

Megxit?s the new Brexit: a vitriolic battleground that pits generations against each other | News | The Sunday Times (https://archive.ph/hBvN2)

I'm surprised at the dramatic turn shown by the graphs. I supposed I shouldn't be; if you put yourself in the shoes of the British you can well imagine the results of so much press. I wish the media would ease up - it's like a shark feeding frenzy.

Latest poll by YouGov sees the Princess Royal as the most popular member of the British Royal Family followed by the Prince and Princess of Wales respectively. For the total overall view, the DoY is still at the bottom of the poll. The rest of the poll included KCIII, the QC, the D/DssoS, EoW (No Countess).

Prince Harry?s popularity falls further as ?Spare? hits the shelves | YouGov (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/01/12/prince-harrys-popularity-falls-further-spare-hits-)

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/leosln75nr/Internal_Royals_230111.pdf  Full View of PDF

Understandably in the United Kingdom where it matters for the Consitutional Monarchy.

Because of Spare, he is a curiosity with all the spilling the beans situation, so much so his Spare book interview with Stephen Colbert, Late Night Show WAS the only one that got #1 rating, 3.5 million watching (USA), hence the Offer (Neil Sean). I forgot to add that Neil said Harry told NBC he will not go to the Coronation because it is Archie's birthday, but would happily be a co-correspondent watching from home and giving his royal expertise. It is not a one hit contract, it is a role on a yearly basis, very likely Trooping of the Colour, Garter, Ascot, Opening of Parliament. Only the televised pomp and ceremony the Royal Family does.

The other 3 interviews did not, there were other programs at the same hour that got the #1 spot. Happy Valley #1 (the Happy Valley is funny versus Angry Harry trashing his family)

Who wants to hear Harry again trashing his family at the Trooping of Colors, the Garter, Ascot or the Opening of Parliament?    Mind that is all he knows as a line of work and has he ever been to the Opening of Parliament?   Does he even know that these events are for as he has shown us that he did not know he had to ask HM if he could get married? He really is ignorant on the history of his country, heck we here know more about his country then he does...

We've reached 15 pages now so it's time to close this thread and open a new one.