How does the monarchy need to change after Andrew?

[mids2019]

I was reading about Prince William's conversation of mental health in men with others and it struck me how open (relatively) about struggles he may have had with emotion. Such openness in my mind would be inconceivable 50 years ago so are we going to see a RF that is more open and much more willing to be presented as human with greater insights into family life?

Maybe it's a case of the RF having to show the public they have nothing to hide in future with increasing scrutiny of the institution. Certainly the concept of majesty on imho has drained somewhat and there is a need for the RF to rebuild its reputation.

For me as the King is elderly and has been ill it will be William who will have the job of revitalizing the monarchy and looking to how it can presented to a newer possibly less deferential generation. The RF are going to need some good PR.

I find your replies very strange. I’ve said I think Catherine may still be very unwell because of what I see with my own eyes, what we have been officially told and what I know about cancer. I don’t think it’s a massively outrageous thing to have said but equally, I don’t want to discuss her health further, either openly or by pm.

We’ve been told there will be no information given about Catherine’s health status and that’s as it should be, especially when there are three children to consider.

However this isn’t the middle ages and I think we are allowed, particularly with the present existential crisis facing the institution, to just wonder what the future might hold if it came to, say, the abdication of KC3 when the Princess of Wales, who is widely regarded to have ‘saved’ the monarchy, has recently been treated for cancer and has been clear that as a result she now wants to engage with royal duties on her own terms. My point was that this desire seems incompatible with being Queen.

Why do you want to discuss it further by pm and why does this one point matter so much to you? You say you really hope I’m wrong (with a tearful emoji), say you think speculation is distasteful when you’re the one pushing for answers, talking about terminal prognoses and for some reason seem to desperately want reassurance that she’s out of the woods. Well, we’ve been told no such thing, and you know as well as I do that cancer is never that simple.

Thank you for your post. I don't think the evidence we've seen suggests the situation is as bad as that, but I respect you have a different view. I was just curious why you think the evidence in the public eye points to bad news, but I understand you don't want to discuss further.

I don't think it's wrong to speculate what the potential effects could be if the situation were worse than they've implied. I just think it shouldn't be done on a public forum, I'll ask MNHQ to withdraw my posts on this tomorrow.

To stick to the point about potential outcomes if he abdicated.. I don't think he will, not for now anyway. If he did, and there looked to be serious issues for W & C's rule, for whatever reason, I think it would raise legitimate questions about whether the monarchy's continuance would be positive for either us or them.

Aww, come on. Why join in with a thread like this if you’re going to ask for deletion? I don’t think anyone has said anything beyind the pale here.

Mad as it sounds - given the absolute horror the word has had for the Windsors since Edward VIII, - I actually think abdication is one of the most likely outcomes, in the end.

I think the monarchy will survive, (and AMW will not face justice, beyond what he’s already had taken from him), but in order for it to do so there could be enough public pressure to make it necessary for KC3 to abdicate to ‘draw a line’ under this and many other things going back almost 50 years.

His reign has been sullied by his brother’s behaviour, certainly - but also his own, Camilla’s and the ghost of Diana. Whether William taking over will be enough of a ‘Fresh start’ is another matter, but I think the longer they wait, the less popular he will become.

The idea of KC3 abdicating the crown (using his own health as an explanation) will be helped along by Queen Margarethe of Denmark setting an encouraging precedent for it not long ago.

Charles is not going to abducate. Why on earth should he?

This reminds me of the talk from when William was about 18 when it was suggested the monarchy should skip Charles altogether and when the late queen died William should get it.

Charles has waited a long time fir the top slot, he's not going to give it up now. His reign will likely be short enough and he'll want to make what he can of it.

I think he should get going with reforms and cutting down the titles and the expense and transparency, then he will have a more positive legacy and leave a more streamlined monarchy to William. I don't think William is in favour of more transparency or less money for that matter so I don't think he will do anything unless forced ( which he may well be) I can't see why anyone thinks William will be a reformer. All he has done so far is not revealed his taxes and forced Charles to stop doing it, presumably so he isn't embarrassed, do less work, have more houses, go on several holidays a year and do more PR. What does that say about the type of King he's going to be? Just because he is younger than Charles and has an attractive wife and kids means nothing. The kids will be teenagers soon and hidden away at boarding school.

Anyone who thinks William will do anything more than tinker with some visible but not very important bits around the edges is deluded imo.

The government would have to force them to do anything else.

William only acted on making money from the NHS etc. when it was made common knowledge. He's reactive, not proactive.

Of course, anything that will make his own role easier and less visible will be on the table!

William said in interview he wants to do Royal with a small 'r'. He didn't explain what he meant. I imagine it means 'don't expect to see much of me!'

Will he still be doing the school run when he takes over, that's the question.

I suspect they will all be in boarding school by then or at least the older 2. He'll have to come up with some other excuse!
I mean I don't imagine he will be much missed if he decides not to do much, but their profligacy needs to be properly accounted for, as well as the privileges they get.
I think there seems to be a lot of sensitivity in Parliament and the press about (accurate) accusations of undue deference on their part meaning that AMW and the Royals have got away with more than they should, so maybe they will start putting more pressure on the RF now that the light has been shone on them.

I agree @LidlAmaretto I was being a bit tongue in cheek when I said about the school run!
A dyed in the wool Royalist on here once said to me she didn't expect William and Kate to do much in the way of duties until Louis reaches 18 !

Having heard bits of the parliamentary debate and the powerful speech by Chris Bryant, I think the tide has turned somewhat.

Also, when you look at the royals and how they did engagements, there were quite a few of them. TLQ had her sister, cousins and children to ‘see the masses’. Charles has his sister, his wife and one brother and one son because of Harry’s departure. Once Charles dies, who will William have to send on engagements? Once Anne and Edward die, it’s just William, his wife and three (by then) adult children

Another question I would like answered, who the heck is paying for Fergie to be holed up in what sounds like a £75k a week health farm? Is it Charles?

Oh and I saw Edward cancelled sn engagement his week because he had a cold. FFS!

I think we decided that she’s probably just not being charged for it. Certainly nobody is paying that bill.

Not sure those places offer freebies, I bet Charles is footing the bill.

It may well be the case that she’s threatening a tell-all book unless she’s kept sweet.

She won’t have much information about political topics or finances but she probably knows a bit of gossip about affairs, illnesses, quarrels - things dating back forty years that the public might still enjoy reading about.

True, bet she will publish and be damned anyway.

Such openness in my mind would be inconceivable 50 years ago so are we going to see a RF that is more open and much more willing to be presented as human with greater insights into family life?

What openness would that be then? The RF are exactly the same closed shop they've always been, it's just that they give innocuous little snippets about themselves that give people the impression that you know who they are.

It's an illusion. None of us knows who they are unless we know them personally and if that was the case we wouldn't be on here talking about them!

Yes, but in the days of social media it is much harder to maintain the illusion that they are superior at all, now respect is earned rather than just given because of class hierachies. I think most people have reasonable idea of their characters.

Yes the Danish monarchy is run more sensibly in that sense.

Maybe it's because they have less to lose. The British RF is based on mystery and adulation. Well look, I know we all don't adore them but the mystery of their lives continues because no light has been shone on their inner workings for centuries. It is carefully cultivated.

The entire thing needs to be disbanded. Let them live their private lives full of wealth, but this entire thing needs to end.

The queen helped finance Andrew’s payment to his victims to silence them. They still can’t make an actual concrete statement on the entire thing. It’s all wishy-washy comments that they think will keep people happy.

Are you on glue? There’s precious little ‘mystery’ when, even leaving aside AMW’s sleeping with trafficked girls provided by his paedophile friend, you can dial a phone line to hear the king telling his lover he wishes he were her tampon, the prince and princess of Wales do rival tv interviews about their marriage, Harry does Oprah and writes a tell-all memoir etc etc.

We know very little about them. Only what they want us to know via their highly paid Crisis managers and PR gurus.

Hereditary peers removed from House of Lords - about bloody time.

One less layer of support to the monarch and also shows that just because you’ve got somewhere by right of birth does not mean you should be there as you’ve not been elected.