William the Quiet Disruptor - Future of the Monarchy

[PrettyFlyforaMaiTai]

I just read this Sky News article “My Week with Prince William: The Quiet Disruptor” and found it really interesting.

The article paints a picture of someone who’s trying to do things differently, more of a “quiet disruptor” than a traditional royal. He seems to want to modernise the monarchy, focusing less on ribbon-cutting and more on community projects and real social impact. It might not be flashy, but it feels more in touch with what people care about today. He wants to be seen as a trustworthy global leader who uses his influence for good in a time when there is a lot of distrust in leadership worldwide.

It talks about how, although some still label him “work-shy” because he schedules his engagements around his children, most of the people interviewed actually saw that as a positive. They praised him for putting his family first and being a present dad.

It acknowledges that not everyone will be happy with this new version of monarchy, and some people will criticise the change in ethos.

I suppose time will tell whether this new approach will change anything long term. Charles also said he wanted to modernise, so let’s see it sticks this time. But it’s an interesting read if you’re curious about how William’s trying to shape his role.

William the Quiet Disruptor

Arguing about how much william works is a bit beside the point—the man is literally a figurehead in waiting. There aren’t enough jobs in existence that justifies the cost of his position. There is no evidence that he does whatever he does with more skill or savoir faire or interest or dedication than a hired administrator would do at a fiftieth the cost and ten times the accountability.

The problem here, as it ever was, is that for whatever reason the UK decided to try crossing a formerly divine adjacent monarchy with a democratic form of governance. Oil and water.

The monarch agreed to pretend to earn their keep with various ceremonial duties. This introduces a bit of a conundrum for the royals—dating back to Victoria—of needing at once to display grandeur and high value and also such mundane middle class virtues as thrift and hard work. Not because they must appeal to the voters as voters but because they must appeal to the public as friends/good masters/good value in order to receive protection for their persons and their wealth now that they have given up control of their private army.

These two imperatives inform the constant battle played out here at mumsnet by supporters (leave the poor boy alooooooone doesn’t he work so hard at being just plain folks?) and those who think “ its money for nothing and chicks for free” with this lot. Its not worth it to me to support these expensive wastrels when there are better things to do with the public purse.

Did the autocorrect get you too? 😆

ive no idea how many hours he should work. The fact he is exists is part of his role so you could argue he’s working all the time. He doesn’t have total freedom to do what he wants so he’s in that role always.
For all his vast wealth it would be much much more preferable to have a little bit of money and freedom. He can’t even quit as it puts his child in his position instead.
I know his work is always held up against how much Anne works, but did she always do so much or has it only been in the last few years?

She's always done that much, Anne has.

Your first paragraph nails it but there are so many in this country who seem hardwired to believe in deference to the system of monarchy. The royals’ PR machine is incredible - they convince people we couldn’t do all this for a fraction of the cost with the same result. It’s impressive if truly depressing.

The biggest community project the RF have ever supported is their own. Keeping their own family in a position of obscene wealth (not a penny of it ever earned) and breathtaking, archaic privilege that would give Louis XIV a run for his money.

The only reason I’m talking about how hard the work is that one of the reasons put forward to justify their existence and their money is how very VERY hard they work! Personally I think Catherine adds more to the gaiety of nations by wandering round smiling and wearing pretty frocks than William does by bothering the professional people who actually get paid to run the Trusts and Foundations and things…..

Jesus wept 🙄

<shrug> You asked. I answered.

So every time there is an article or interview suggesting William actually works quite a lot, the goalposts change. Now it's oh, he's only working hard for the Duchy of Cornwall to line his own pockets, or it's the professionals paid to run the trusts and foundations who actually do the work....... The article linked to above suggests William is being pretty hands on and focussed, and making a difference.

You disagreed while providing no supporting links for your position.

Still interested in seeing any you have...

I don't think anyone really believes the royals work super hard do they?

But even so - I wouldn't want their lives.

I mean Kate could be living in a lovely Berkshire home with kids at great schools, lots of money and none of the scrutiny.

I really do think William is going to change things massively - reduced visibility but also reduced costs hopefully.

Actually contradicting myself as loads of people seem to buy into Charles working hard but I do wonder if he is working smart and also if everything he does is necessary??

They all remind me a bit of the principles in Yes Minister - give them lots of boxes to look at but nothing really important.

As I think CurlewKate said (forgive me if I am wrong) - I would just like to see lots of Kate smiling and ideally wearing some lovely clothes. But I am terribly superficial and really just here for the glamour.

The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall date back to medieval times. To take Lancaster for example, it dates back to the holdings of the Earls and Dukes of Lancaster who were descended from Henry III. They literally played at the “Game of Thrones” in this period, being involved in the deposition of Edward II, wars with France and Scotland, all sorts of baronial fighting and several changes of thrones. Some were executed, some were successful, but their lands kept being passed down the family line until they ended up in the hands of Blanche of Lancaster, who married John of Gaunt, a son of Edward III. He took the title Duke of Lancaster after the wedding. Their son Henry Bolingbroke became Henry IV in 1399, and bought those Lancaster holdings and the title Duke of Lancaster with him. They have stayed in the current royal line ever since.

They have survived to this day, and have been managed and grown with time. In the same way that the Church of England has historic assets, or Oxford and Cambridge colleges, or the City of London, or various schools around the country, or other families that were also powerful in this time period (the Howard family is a good example) both in the UK and across Europe.

Saying they didn’t earn it is largely meaningless, in so far as earning money is a modern concept you are trying to apply to an incredibly different time. They won battles, held favour with the kings, managed to have heirs, and generally survived. And so they kept what they had amassed and passed it down. Most societies in the world do and have worked on that principle.

This may literally be the the nuttiest thing I have read here, ever. A complete lack of british history, let alone morality.

Applying the morality of the current generation to events that happened several centuries ago is generally not a productive avenue. I might even call it nutty…

They have survived to this day, and have been managed and grown with time.

With the help of decades' worth of lucrative tax breaks coupled with fluctuating and indistinct legal status for tax purposes and some dubious deals along the way e.g. C selling 'his' trees grown on duchy land back to the Duchy and - bang up to date - it now transpires double dipping in the public pot on the quiet.

What lack of British history?

Just to note, they’ve had the same legal status since they were founded. It’s not a modern legal structure, but why would it be - it dates back to the Middle Ages. There are other bodies with similar medieval structures around too.

Interesting. I know about John of gaunt, mainly through my reading of Katherine by Anya Seton. Really interesting about the medieval history and how the tudors ended up on the throne.

The feudal legal status may not have changed but tax matters haven't kept up with the vast commercial enterprises the duchies have become which is how we've ended up with the weaselly comment 'The Duchy is a private estate with a commercial imperative'.

They'd much prefer the plebs stop banging on about ghastly things like why they don't pay Corporation Tax on their 'commercial imperatives'.

Yes, I understand perfectly well and I know as much as you do about the history of the monarchy and Britain in general. But nothing will convince me that Heads of State should still be hereditary as well as the title holders of large swathes of the country, including the entirity of the territorial seabed and half the UK's foreshore.

They should not be exempt from taxes and they should not be afforded "King's (or Queen's) Consent which they've used to it's full advantage to exempt themselves from a raft of legislation, including race discrimination, animal welfare and environmental laws along with secrecy clauses surrounding their "embarrassing wealth" (those were the late Queen's words, and not because she was ashamed).

It's interesting to note that apart from feudalism and baronial conquests, you've failed to mention the simply eye watering wealth accumulated (effectively stolen) from overseas countries under the guise of Empire. You are indeed correct though, it does (and should) apply to a very different time.

This thread has been discussing the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. Not the wealth derived from the UK’s Empire. So I think it’s fairly obvious why I didn’t mention that when talking about how the King and Prince of Wales come to each have a Duchy to administer. If you want to start a conversation about that as a new topic, feel free. 😀

Rather a notable gap when the King got his head chopped off, and since then parliament has had significant control over who should be heir.

There has been repeated wrangling over who should pay for what, and it has been repeatedly argued that the Duchies are public property. However, they haven't always been managed profitably, so they have sometimes been ignored.

The Windsors keep their role because more people think they are value for money than don't - or just don't care.

If that were to change it is likely that a reason would be found to take control of their assets.

Rather a notable gap when the King got his head chopped off, and since then parliament has had significant control over who should be heir.

Funnily enough the assets of the Duchy of Lancaster had been significantly depleted by the time of Charles I’s execution and the Protectorate government - Charles had been selling loads of his land off to pay for the war against Parliament. Obviously Crowmwell claimed all the Crown assets, but they were returned to Charles II on the Restoration. Cash-strapped monarchies continued to sell the and off however, until one of Queen Anne’s parliaments made a law that they could np longer dispose of assets - they wanted the Monarch to be self-sufficient in terms of funding! How times change - now that’s seen as a bad thing by some people.