Monday 13 January 2020
The Royal "crisis."
I'm well aware that, as a died-in-the-wool Liberal by all logic I ought to be a republican. However, I take the view that, in the unlikely event of my doing something brave and being awarded a medal, I should prefer to receive it from one of the Windsors than from a fromer politician, and certainly not from Mrs Thatcher, Tony Blair or Theresa May (nor, for that matter Charles Kennedy, though maybe from Jo Grimond).
However, I'd like to see a "slimmed down" monarchy, possibly on the Scandinavian bicycle model.
It seems to me that the best way to slim down the monarchy is that, once the heir to the throne has an heir, then the rest should drop out.
In contemporary terms that would have meant that as soon as Prince Charles, the current heir, had his first child, William, then the Queen's other children, Anne, Andrew and Edward, should drop out, although perhaps Anne should be retained in order to keep a gender balance between the younger working members.
In practical terms that would have been ideal, since Princess Anne seems to be well respected and seen to do a good job, whereas both Andrew, (his unsavoury friendship) and Edward (a "Royal It's a Knockout" have hardly brought much credit on the institution (though we should acknowledge Andrew's active service in the air-force).
Now that the heir to the heir also has children (Prince George, with his sister as a "spare"), Prince Harry now, barring an unlikely tragedy which wipes out William's entire family, becomes irrelevant to the succession. So his departure from "royal duties" does no great harm, though it would be a pity, since he has developed an attractive personality and espoused important good causes in concern for mental health and his mother's campaign against land mines.
I can't see why boys outside the direct succession should become dukes. They could be princes, and the girls princesses, until they move out of the direct succession, when they could revert to being Mr or Mrs. In fact, I think Princess Anne's children have never been princes or princesses.
Once they've reverted to Mr or Mrs they could earn their living like anyone else. I believe Princess Margaret's son has developed a successful business as an up-market carpenter. There should be a barrier to their using their former royal status to attract customers or achieve appointments, though this would not stop those in the know fawning up to them because of their connections. Maybe that explains the success of Princess Margaret's son's business.
We shall see within a few days, we are told, what the Royal Caucus comes up with. Maybe they'll read this blog and award me a medal for my services to the continuity of the constitution.
I remember Ken Dodd always saying that he would like a knighthood. (It would keep his ears warm in bed.)
ReplyDeleteNice: I'd not heard that one.
DeleteThey could be princes, and the girls princesses, until they move out of the direct succession, when they could revert to being Mr or Mrs
ReplyDeletePeople don't move down in status unless they've done something truly horrendous (like the ex-Sir Fred Goodwin, or, apparently, two lords who committed treason during the first world war). Having your titles revoked is a punishment for heinous crimes. You don't strip people of titles once granted just because they've moved 'out of the direct succession'.
Besides which, how are you defining 'direct succession' here? Do you mean the heir apparent, then their heir apparent, and so on? In which case Harry was never in the 'direct succession'. But I can't think of any other definition that makes sense, unless you go for something stupid like 'the heir apparent, the heir apparent's heir apparent, and so on until you reach an heir apparent without any children, and then include the siblings of that heir apparent'. But that's a stupid definition and certain;y doesn't deserve the description 'direct'.
I think I've already explained this:
Delete"Now that the heir to the heir also has children (Prince George, with his sister as a "spare"), Prince Harry now, barring an unlikely tragedy which wipes out William's entire family, becomes irrelevant to the succession."
Striping people of their titles may at the moment be seen as a punishment. I'm simply suggesting that it becomes a regular thing once they move out of the direct line of succession. For Harry ad Meghan to "retain their titles but not use them" seems like having your cake and eating it.
I think I've already explained this
DeleteNot very clearly. I'm stil not sure exactly what you're defining as 'the direct succession'.
Here's some questions your definition needs to answer:
1. Exactly when did Harry move to 'outside the direct succession'? On Prince George's birth? Princess Charlotte's? Prince Louis's?
2. Was Princess Anne ever in the direct succession? If so, when did she move outside it? At birth she was second in line; when Andrew was born, she because third in line; when Edward was born, forth; when William was born, fifth, and with Harry's birth, sixth. At what point did she move 'outside the direct succession'?
3. Same question as 2 but with the Earl of Wessex. Was he ever in 'the direct succession'?
4. How does your definition deal with heirs presumptive? Say Princess Charlotte gets married before Prince George and has two children, who therefore become fifth and sixth in line to the throne. Are they in the direct succession? What happens then when George does marry and has children: do they get bumped outside the line of direct succession?
In short I don't think you've thought this through, but maybe I'm wrong and you have, so if you could give your definition of what it means to be 'in the direct succession that would be great.
For Harry ad Meghan to "retain their titles but not use them" seems like having your cake and eating it.
Not at all. It's more like them being allowed to retain their titles conditional upon good behaviour (which includes not using them). Should they misbehave and start exploiting their royal connections for financial gain, the titles can still be taken away.
The idea of people having privileges and powers which they retain so long as they don't use them is hardly alien to our system, in fact it's the cornerstone of some of the most wonderful paradoxes of our constitution. Her Majesty, for example, is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and remains so exactly as long as she doesn't try to give orders to any soldiers. She has the right to dismiss the Prime Minister at any time and appoint whoever she likes to the post, whether or not they are a Member of Parliament; and again she retains that absolute right just so long as she never exercises it. It's glorious.
Princess Anne […] At birth she was second in line; when Andrew was born, she because third in line
DeleteOh, sorry; of course at birth she was third in line to the throne; she only because second in line on her grandfather's death, then returned to being third in line on the birth of her younger brother.
Still, the question remains the same.
I don't think it is worth spending a lot of time on this one. How about once they drop below 5 in the succession they cease to by TRHs and are free to ear their livings? You could make an exception for gender balance.
DeleteOkay, so, right now, Charles, William, George, Charlotte and Louis would have titles but not Harry; if the Cambridges have another child then that child won't have a title unless and until Her Majesty dies at which point it will suddenly acquire one, only to possibly lose it again later?
DeleteAnd if Charlotte has a child before George, then that child steals Louis's title, only then to have it potentially stolen in turn by George's child?
Have you really thought this through?