Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

King Charles, Parliament and the People


ElCid
 Share

Recommended Posts

I started this since another thread is about Queen Elizabeth.

I will defer to the Anglophiles, Canadians and others on much of this.  However I speculate that within a few years, Parliament, the government and people will defer a lot  less to King Charles than they did to Elizabeth.  For a lot of reasons.

There has always been a sizable number who believe the monarchy has reached its expiration date.  There have also been a lot of questions about the huge cost to the people for supporting the monarchy and the royal family.

There will also be more pressure on Prince William and his wife to improve the image of the royal family.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

King Charles III: How his reign may differ from Queen Elizabeth : NPR

"As King Charles III begins his reign as Britain's new monarch, focus turns to how he may use his position as head of state to promote causes that he's been passionate about for decades — the environment and climate change, in particular, as well as other philanthropic efforts.

Throughout her 70 years on the throne and up until her death on Thursday, as monarch, Queen Elizabeth II sought to maintain strict political neutrality, going so far as not to vote.

And while Charles has been careful not to tread too publicly, he does have a history of wading into politics, something over which some British officials have voiced concern that he may be more willing to do as king"

 

It will be interesting to see how things change after 70 years of Queen Elizabeth.  From what little I've read it seems as though William and Kate are well-liked and are on-board for the family business unlike his brother and sister-in-law.  As the article above speculates, maybe Charles will continue to promote environmental causes.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hellzapoppin said:

King Charles III: How his reign may differ from Queen Elizabeth : NPR

"As King Charles III begins his reign as Britain's new monarch, focus turns to how he may use his position as head of state to promote causes that he's been passionate about for decades — the environment and climate change, in particular, as well as other philanthropic efforts.

Throughout her 70 years on the throne and up until her death on Thursday, as monarch, Queen Elizabeth II sought to maintain strict political neutrality, going so far as not to vote.

And while Charles has been careful not to tread too publicly, he does have a history of wading into politics, something over which some British officials have voiced concern that he may be more willing to do as king"

 

It will be interesting to see how things change after 70 years of Queen Elizabeth.  From what little I've read it seems as though William and Kate are well-liked and are on-board for the family business unlike his brother and sister-in-law.  As the article above speculates, maybe Charles will continue to promote environmental causes.  

Just read an article in newspaper re: the new Conservative British cabinet, which is "solidly on the right."  I can foresee conflicts on climate and environmental issues.  Disregard the link title as it is about Liz Truss's cabinet.

https://apnews.com/article/boris-johnson-asia-london-africa-f2c1f2d57f68d52eac69d213c5f5835b

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll add this from USA Today:

"Charles has made no secret of his desire to "slim down" the monarchy – reduce the number of working senior royals supported by taxpayers – and reduce the overall multi-million-pound annual cost of the royal show. There has been talk that he will perhaps open Buckingham Palace to paying tourists year-round (it's only open during the summer now) or by turning private royal residences, such as Balmoral Castle in Scotland, into museums."

Royal succession: Queen Elizabeth's death redefines her family's roles (usatoday.com)

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Just read an article in newspaper re: the new Conservative British cabinet, which is "solidly on the right."  I can foresee conflicts on climate and environmental issues.

Yes, that's a good point.  And maybe people aren't used to a monarch who publicly takes a stand on political issues or at least perceived political issues.  I don't know how well-liked Charles and Camilla are either.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hellzapoppin said:

I'll add this from USA Today:

"Charles has made no secret of his desire to "slim down" the monarchy – reduce the number of working senior royals supported by taxpayers – and reduce the overall multi-million-pound annual cost of the royal show. There has been talk that he will perhaps open Buckingham Palace to paying tourists year-round (it's only open during the summer now) or by turning private royal residences, such as Balmoral Castle in Scotland, into museums."

Royal succession: Queen Elizabeth's death redefines her family's roles (usatoday.com)

 

The opening of Buckingham Palace to the (paying) public is a relatively recent development.  QEII did it in order to pay for the rebuilding of Windsor Castle after the fire in the early 1990s.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ElCid said:

I started this since another thread is about Queen Elizabeth.

I will defer to the Anglophiles, Canadians and others on much of this.  However I speculate that within a few years, Parliament, the government and people will defer a lot  less to King Charles than they did to Elizabeth.  For a lot of reasons.

There has always been a sizable number who believe the monarchy has reached its expiration date.  There have also been a lot of questions about the huge cost to the people for supporting the monarchy and the royal family.

There will also be more pressure on Prince William and his wife to improve the image of the royal family.

There have always been Republicans (not of the American variety) in the UK, who advocate for the conversion of the UK to a republic from a constitutional monarchy.   Of course, for a period of about 11 years (1649 to 1660), it was a Commonwealth, and had no monarch.  It was a very unstable period of time.

I think the UK (however long it remains the UK - it may eventually devolve so that the four constituent countries separate) will retain the monarchy, but it will be different.   It will probably be slimmed down a bit, but us commoners won't really notice.  It won't be stripped down to the levels of the other European monarchies, who are virtually invisible (Norway, Spain, Belgium, etc.)  The only states whose monarchs that can even come close to rivaling the UK's are those of Monaco and the Vatican.

At the start of the 20th century, all European countries, save France, Switzerland and the tiny country of San Marino (surrounded by Italy) were monarchies.  Today, there are only 12.

I think where you will see more change are in the former colonies.  Charles III became the king of 14 other countries yesterday.  I think you'll see some of the smaller island nations gravitate away from the monarchy.   Officials in Jamaica have made statements to that effect recently, and Barbados transitioned to a republic just last year, in November.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, txfilmfan said:

I think the UK (however long it remains the UK - it may eventually devolve so that the four constituent countries separate) will retain the monarchy, but it will be different.   It will probably be slimmed down a bit, but us commoners won't really notice.  It won't be stripped down to the levels of the other European monarchies, who are virtually invisible (Norway, Spain, Belgium, etc.)  The only states whose monarchs that can even come close to rivaling the UK's are those of Monaco and the Vatican.

I wonder how much it helps the economy. I've read that everybody wanted their kids to wear the clothes prince George wore. I heard the Queen's Birthday parade was quite the tourist attraction. Things like changing of the guards. I saw a movie with Irene Dunne playing Queen Victoria. The P.M. told her that the people weren't sure they wanted a monarchy because of the taxes. (She wasn't going to any events)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Marysara1 said:

I wonder how much it helps the economy. I've read that everybody wanted their kids to wear the clothes prince George wore. I heard the Queen's Birthday parade was quite the tourist attraction. Things like changing of the guards. I saw a movie with Irene Dunne playing Queen Victoria. The P.M. told her that the people weren't sure they wanted a monarchy because of the taxes. (She wasn't going to any events)

It certainly drives a significant portion of the tourist economy, but a lot of that is historical in nature too (people's interest in historical castles, buildings, etc.) associated with the monarchy, which would still exist even if they abolished the monarchy today (and would still need to be maintained by public funds, in all likelihood).

Supporting the monarchy costs each UK citizen about £4.50 per year.

https://brandfinance.com/wp-content/uploads/1/brand_finance_monarchy_press_release.pdf

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

It certainly drives a significant portion of the tourist economy, but a lot of that is historical in nature too (people's interest in historical castles, buildings, etc.) associated with the monarchy, which would still exist even if they abolished the monarchy today (and would still need to be maintained by public funds, in all likelihood).

Supporting the monarchy costs each UK citizen about £4.50 per year.

https://brandfinance.com/wp-content/uploads/1/brand_finance_monarchy_press_release.pdf

 

Per the article, it costs the taxpayers 292 million pounds per year in 2017.  A pound is worth $1.16.  So we are talking about $338 million if I calculated correctly.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Ever been to Britain?  The monarchy brings in countless billions in tourism and products.

Not saying they are not a moneymaker.  Just summarizing what was in the article as to the cost to taxpayers for the monarchy - which has been an ongoing area of dispute for decades in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People don't have to  defer to  the  British  monarch  since they have zero power. All Charlie has to do is  keep  the Windsor scam going

and make sure the money spigot keeps  flowing. How difficult can that be? It's worked  for over 100 years, it should last at least another

100. 

charles-gerry-pa-3--z.jpg

I guess he isn't all bad.  ☘️

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:

Ever been to Britain?  The monarchy brings in countless billions in tourism and products.

I've spent most of my time in Europe in France.

And I must say-- most of my time standing in lines in Paris, at Versailles, in The Loire Valley--in: Bordeaux, Dijon, Nancy, Rouen, Reims etc trying to get into cathedrals, churches, monuments, castles, parks, squares, museums, hotels de ville etc that were populated by the Kings and Queens of France.

Not to mention the ones that belonged to Napoleon--there's a whole gargantuan monument built around his tomb, that he built himself. He said it was for his soldiers, but you knew that's where he wanted to be buried.

And then there's the other Napoleon, Napoleon III. I once spent part of a vacation standing in line to see where he used to live in the Louvre. And it just looked like my mother's Victorian living room. But I paid the money, so I stood in line.

It's been a while since any of the Kings and Queens and Napoleons have been in France. But that fact doesn't seem to hurt the gargantuan French tourist industry. 

BTW--I forgot to mention the lines at the Eiffel Tower. But fortunately, at least they have 2 lines there.

C'est la verite'.

Vive la France! Vive la Republique!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Pretty cool under fire I must say

That just reminded me of one time I was in London, I think it was 1981. The Queen was trooping the colors, I believe it was her fake birthday. And some idiot took a shot at her on the horse, but it seems like he was using blanks--but at any rate she wasn't hurt except the horse shied a bit.

Oh the uproar the next day in all the newspapers about this guy shooting at somebody's mother and somebody's grandmother.

She was such a great horse woman,

she could handle that horse and any other.

But the guy wasn't shooting at somebody's mother or grandmother, he was shooting at the Head of State. And that sometimes is the price a Head of State has to pay, that goes along with the territory of the job.

But I always say,

any woman who loved dogs and horses as much as she did couldn't be all bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Pretty cool under fire I must say

Was this the time Prince Charles was in Australia? I think it was about the time there was that controversy in his household about one of his aides being sexually battered by several others employed in his household. Somewhat of a sex scandal and the allegedly battered man was reportedly later paid off. I believe it may have had something to do with that mess.

May have been a different time, but that was a sex scandal concerning one of the royal sons, predating Prince Andrew's big payoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ElCid said:

Per the article, it costs the taxpayers 292 million pounds per year in 2017.  A pound is worth $1.16.  So we are talking about $338 million if I calculated correctly.

And they get a fantastic amount of money from dutchies and rents.

I can remember when the Queen started paying tax, about the time of the Windsor Castle fire. Before then she didn't.

Also an awful lot is going on in terms of them taking money under the table from the Saudi Arabian and Russian oligarchs. Prince Charles was recently questioned about some Saudi Arabian pay off connected with a British title given. And the Queen's cousin Prince Michael of Kent was also reported to be receiving money from a Russian oligarch for access to the monarchy.

They also, believe it or not, have a cottage industry of promoting their own products which, the public can buy to get that Royal seal.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...