What do you expect from our Royal Family

[Spectre8]

There were alot of good discussions and comments on my previous thread re. William missing the VJ day around the role and expectations of the Royal Family. I didn't want it to be a bashing thread to make personal attacks at William or Kate but well some comments were still made.

So its made me think there is still a very worthwhile discussion to be had about the future of the RF and their role. So lets try to keep it about that and not specifically about the person in that current role.

For me, if the next King wants a more private life, that his service and duty is not about the number of engagements he or the working royals do then its needs to be really articulated what their purpose is and 100% transparency of the sovereign grant, even a reduction of it since some of the money goes towards covering the cost of these engagments. I'd also like to see some of assets returned to us so we can monetise them to pay for their upkeep.

It's an interesting question. I wanted an objective definition to work from so I googled the role of the monarch in a constitutional monarchy and found this at UCL.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/explainers/what-role-monarchy

It's a pretty broad definition and I'm going to think about it but my immediate thought is that the role itself is fairly clearly defined in the constitution but there seems to have been little thought as to how the role evolves and changes as society and culture evolve and change.

Society in general and deference in particular is no longer the way it was in the 1950s when the late Queen ascended and this means that there will be increasing questions about finances, duties, and expectations around the monarch's wider role and responsibilities and that of the other working royals.

The institution has to balance moving with the times with no being swayed by every cultural shift. In that way it is a bit like the Church of England or indeed any large organisation. Some manage transitions better than others and I'm not sure where the crown lies in those terms. With Charles being ill it may be that some things he had planned have been delayed, or it may be that talking about change as the Heir is easier than implementing change as the monarch.

We certainly live in interesting times.

I realised I didn't really answer your question!

I expect the monarch to carry out his constitutional role, to represent the nation where required and to stay out of politics.

Thanks thats a great link, I am not ful reputable license as in we shouldn't have a RF although sometimes the thought dows cross the mind. I think i agree with you but id also like there to be far greater transparency on finances and no more laws that protect their wealth.

I agree that there needs to be more transparency on finances. (I think that in general considering the degree of tax avoidance in this country.) I'm not sure about inheritance tax, speaking as one of the 7% who have actually had to pay it. It makes sense for the monarch to pass some things directly to the next monarch but I'm not sure how much of their holdings it should include, maybe it should only apply to certain areas. It should definitely be part of the financial discussions though.

I think if we are talking about how the role of a constitutional monarchy should develop, we should also include the link with the Church of England.

I am very uncomfortable that the monarch in effect has no freedom of personal belief. It is one thing to be required to take part in appropriate ceremonies but quite another to be considered head of the church.

(I know there was a thread on this a while ago.)

In my not at all humble opinion disestablishment would benefit both church and state enormously.

I'd also like to see some of assets returned to us so we can monetise them to pay for their upkeep.

Re the Sovereign grant:

@PensionedCruiser posted a very clear summary of the source of the Sovereign grant towards the end of your last thread - you may have missed it.

The Crown Estate is owned by the Monarch, but in 1760, George III surrendered the management of this part of his holdings to Parliament in return for a fixed annual payment, which became the Civil List. Effectively, that means that the profits go directly to HM Treasury to fund Government expenditure. (There is plenty more information online.)
The Sovereign Grant was established in 2011 by the Sovereign Grant Act. This abolished the Civil List and introduced a single payment to the Monarch to fund Royal Expenditure. Payments to staff, reimbursement of expenses incurred during official duties (by all the working Royals) and upkeep of Palaces owned by the public (Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle etc) are funded by the Sovereign Grant.
According to the latest figures, the Crown Estate generated a profit of £1.1 billion in 2024, which was paid to HM Treasury. The Sovereign Grant was paid at 12% of this profit - quite a sum. However, none of this money is paid through the taxes raised by HMRC.

You will see that the assets were owned by the monarch and the management of them surrendered to parliament in return for an annual payment. The profits of the Crown Estate hence go to the Treasury and the Sovereign grant is paod out of this.

@Spectre8 In other words, it's not a case of 'assets returned to us so we can monetise them to pay for their upkeep'. The government receives a healthy profit from the Crown Estate already.

Taxes on the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall would be a separate issue.

I would say most of what I expect comes down to them not taking the piss. More transparency around their finances- especially around the taxes and charges on the Duchies, smaller households, removal of the right to scrutinise legislation and demand exemptions ( actually no exemptions from legislation unless on security grounds or they have to be fully justified by BP/KP and openly debated in Parliament) Only the heir and their heir to be Prince/Princess/HRH and be expected to have Royal duties- so now only William and George. The others can be Lord/Lady, equalised for male and female and expected to be the same as the cousins now- get a job even if they are given a big house etc on marriage and an allowance so they can maintain it from their fathers private income. I would change the National anthem and the honours system too to something more representative of the nation, take reference to Empire out of the honours system and have the King swear allegiance to us rather than us swear allegiance to him at his coronation.

This is an interesting point, if the RF want to be representative of its people it serves which is now much more diverse should it still be linked to being head of the church

To emigrate?

I see this makes it clearer. I will go bsck to the next point I sometimes make that if they are doing less engagements then they should not need as many years staff and reimbursement of expenses related to those should go down. Im not saying it'll be a huge amount but still...in principle...

But the Anglican church was created by the monarch of the day if we seperate church and crown we are effectively dismantling the church of England

That's a different point, which can also be considered.

My point is simply about personal freedom of religion.

I also agree with you about that too.

I quite like what you say about swearing allegiance to us. And also agree with all your other points

I agree. I'm happy with a future Catholic monarch, in this day and age the ban is archaic. Although, bearing in mind that the monarch swears to protect the Church of Scotland at proclamation, it might be not complicated than I think!

More complicated, plus the Oath swears to uphold the Protestant church.

Yeah any change is really complicated isn't it.

Thank you @Spectre8 for a new thread. I was hoping you would. It is refreshing to be able to discuss the monarchy whilst swerving harry and meghan talk which every royal thread tends to become.

@MrsLeonFarrell I so agree with your post at 0938. Because QE2 reigned for 70 years, there was never any thought as to how the Monarchy would evolve in these days and times after she died. I have always thought that QE2 should've abdicated at say 70, giving Charles a chance to make his mark for 20 years, then he could have done the same for William at some point. But it just limped on and it's almost like the courtiers, aides etc are surprised at support for the royal family dropping. It was always going to happen when QE2 went!

@LidlAmaretto So agree with your post too.

Far far more transparency
Ditch Erskine May handbook (it isn't law) so that questions can be raised in Parliament. They are asked regularly and shelved by the Speaker.
I don't want to see any of the wider family. A ceremonial role for the King (and Queen if she so wishes). Heir visible (and heir's wife if she so wishes) and that is it
Reduce the Sovereign Grant drastically. The fact it is going up 53% shortly is obscene when so many people are struggling. I don't know how they've got the nerve to accept it, to be honest, when there are less royals doing less work.

Interesting. If I take on a job I get a contract outlining my terms and conditions and responsibilities and the salary I will receive for that.

In a similar way, if W wants to change the monarchy I wonder if we need to look at our contract with him?

Personally I want someone to represent us, both on the world stage and within the UK. I want them to create a sense of pride and uplift us. I think of the Queen’s speech in Covid and how heads of state like Trump are all dying for a royal audience.

I think they should rise about politics and contentious issues.

So I think they should be present, be visible and make us proud. And I am prepared to pay for that but how much should be open for discussion.

Transparency around Finances.
Turn over Windsor, Buckingham Palace and Balmoral to the National Trust.
Work hard for the incredible privilege they’ve been handed.
Be afforded privacy in their day to day lives.
Have abdication normalised. Perhaps the role isn’t suited to the eldest sibling , they should be able to turn it over to the next in line …

Thanks for this.

I do think it's important to remember that the Sovereign Grant is going up because the profits of the estate are going up. The calculation remains the same and isn't controlled by the monarch. If there is blame here it rests with those politicians and civil servants who worked out the formula, not the monarch who accepted it.

That isn't too say I don't think it needs looking at, it does, just that I am not going to criticise the monarch for the amount he is getting.

I do think it's important to remember that the Sovereign Grant is going up because the profits of the estate are going up. The calculation remains the same and isn't controlled by the monarch. If there is blame here it rests with those politicians and civil servants who worked out the formula, not the monarch who accepted it.

I totally agree. I think it was John Major who tabled this motion to have the SG always going up and never down.
I am just waiting for Buck House repairs to be completed and the millions earmarked for that means the SG will go down. We have been promised this. It was a 7 year project I believe. If it doesn't happen I will chain myself to BP railings!

However there is no reason why they have to take all the money. Charles returned some when there were unbelievably astronomical profits with sea beds and windfarms, it was billions. So it is something the King can do.

I would like them to stop pretending they are "just like us"
I like KC and hope he is king for a while. I think it will be very different when PW is king and we will not see much of him.

I think if they are not going to do much, they should have their income cut.

Personally I want someone to represent us, both on the world stage and within the UK. I want them to create a sense of pride and uplift us.

Well i agree with your entire post and like how you framed it. But this bit in particular is what I feel is missing right now. Why I am questioning and arsing whats the bloody point of them. We used to as a family look forward to the Queens speech as it was relatable in terms of understanding our difficulties bjt uplifting too and obviously we always heard of what she was doing...but now there is very little and if we miss the King's speech oh well whatever.

I feel like at the moment just seems to be alot of indirect moaning about having to do this role and how they want more normal life... I feel like that narrative has gone too far the other way.

I agree. Much of this is the fault of politicians with one eye on a knighthood. John Major negotiated a deal on our behalf that basically meant that the Sovereign grant will never go down (hopefully it will after the renovation costs are paid though!) and that the amount can never be discussed in Parliament unlike the Civil List which was paid to individuals depending on the work they did (IIRC) and could be set by Parliament. They have a sweet deal that means the Monarch gets a fixed amount to do what they like with no matter how many people they have to fund, so if the Monarchy is slimmed down to 4 people or whatever, it just means the King will get more money to divide between fewer people.
I agree Buckingham Palace needs to be opened up for the whole year, and far more of it (stick some of the priceless paintings up that we cant see and make it into an art gallery too). If the purpose of them is to bring in tourists, tourists can pay for the upkeep.