REX - The Coronation. What does the future hold for King Charles III, and the Royals.

May 2023_REX-compressed.pdf

Download PDF • 2.38MB

REX

WHAT DEOS THE FUTURE HOLD...

Eight months after Queen Elizabeth II passed away, on September 8, 2022, at the age of 96, after reigning for more than 70 years, and the longest-reigning monarch in British history with her Platinum Jubilee in the summer of 2022, the late Queen’s eldest son has now become King Charles III, with his son William becoming the heir apparent.

As we celebrate the official crowning of our third King Charles, and first Queen Camilla, attention has drawn to the future of the monarchy and how best it can serve the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth, and what influence if any it should or could play in international duties on behalf of Britain and Northern Ireland.

Kings Charles III has made no secret of his desire to overhaul the current institution, reviewing the number of Royals that should be working, the staff, payroll, and how best to bring the monarchy in to the 21st C.

There are many within the establishment that would like to see the status quo, not least as changes in reduction to the overall workings of the regal machine will see their positions untenable.

There is little doubt that the Crown is seen as a valuable “contribution asset” to the country’s future prosperity both from a fiscal position but also from a stance of national identity and stability.

The late Queen was a source of British “soft power” and diplomatic influence throughout her 70-year reign, making countless state visits and foreign tours that brought benefits for national security, influence, and trade.

There are of course some who would be happy to see the back of the Royal family. Shouts of unelected persons in a power of influence, an era past not present or relevant, and individual shenanigans by previous royals haven’t helped their cause. But then again, you can’t please all the people all the time. It’s easy for many to sit on their pious pulpit, puffing on their pontificating pipe and extolling the virtues of a perfect family whilst many make a dog’s dinner of their own lives.

The reality is whilst we know our lives are far from perfect, as much as we believe otherwise, we hope and expect members of the Royal family, above all others, to be a beacon of hope and strength to us all. We ignore the facts that they themselves are just like us, normal human beings born or married into a system that we expect them to perform in a manner, both publicly and privately to be everything we’re not. That’s not going to happen. Let's take a moment and look back at the past monarchs and see what make mistakes,have been made, some with spectacular results!,

MONARCHS OF INFAMY

1. Stephen (r. 1135-1154)

The grandson of William the Conqueror, Stephen seized the throne when Henry I died in 1135. This led to a 15-year civil war between Stephen and Henry’s daughter and heir, Empress Matilda. The war came to be known as ‘The Anarchy’ as England descended into chaos and lawlessness. Eventually, Stephen agreed to name Matilda’s son as his heir in a negotiated peace settlement after their armies fought themselves to a stalemate, passing over his own son in the line of succession. After years of war, Stephen died in 1154 and Matilda’s son, Henry II, became king.

2. Edward II (r. 1307-1327)

Son of Edward I, the fearsome ‘Hammer of the Scots’ Edward II was nothing like his father, relying heavily on the counsel of his unpopular favourite (and suspected lover) Piers Gaveston. This eventually led to Edward being forced by Parliament to agree to a set of humiliating restrictions on his power as well as Gaveston’s execution. After being defeated by Robert the Bruce at the Battle of Bannockburn and losing the Duchy of Gascony in France, Edward’s wife Isabella turned against him. She invaded England with her lover, Roger Mortimer, and forced Edward to abdicate in favour of his son. Edward is believed to have been murdered while being held prisoner at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire in 1327.

3. Henry VI (r. 1422-1461 and from 1470-1471)

The son of the warrior king Henry V and Catherine of Valois, Henry grew up to be timid, quiet, and pious, as well as mentally ill. The life of a monk would have suited him more. Unfortunately, his destiny was to be king, and it was a role he was poorly suited to.

During his tenure on the throne, Henry lost all the territory conquered by his father and the country descended into the bloody conflict known as the Wars of the Roses. Deposed not once but twice by his Yorkist rival Edward IV, Henry was most likely murdered on the orders of Edward in the Tower of London in 1471.

4. Richard III (r. 1483-1485)

Jury is now out on this one, considering new historical evidence that has come to light. What have we been told so far...Richard III seized the throne following the death of his brother, Edward IV, in 1483. Before he could do that, there was the little matter of Edward’s children, Edward V, and his younger brother Richard, who were imprisoned in the Tower of London. Fortunately for Richard, the boys ‘mysteriously disappeared’, clearing the way for him to take the throne. His reign didn’t last long. Richard’s army met that of his rival Henry Tudor at the Battle of Bosworth. Richard was killed in the thick of the fighting, bringing an end to the Plantagenet dynasty that had ruled England since the Norman Conquest. His bones were long thought to have been thrown in a nearby river, but in 2015 they were found under a car park in Leicester.

5. Henry VIII (r. 1509-1547)

One of England’s most famous monarchs was a foul-tempered, gluttonous, bloodthirsty tyrant who, as well as ordering the executions of two of the women who had the misfortune to marry him, had an estimated 57,000 people executed during his 36-year reign. Despite acquiring vast wealth after dissolving the monasteries and breaking with the Catholic Church, Henry VIII’s extravagant lifestyle and fondness for foreign wars brought England to the verge of bankruptcy on several occasions. However, his debauchery is less than his overall achievements and he is the only monarch that appears on our infamy and influence list!!

6. Mary I (r. 1553-1558)

The eldest daughter of Henry VIII was never meant to ascend the throne. Her father went to great lengths to ensure the country was left in the hands of a male heir. However, Henry’s son, Edward VI, died at the age of 16 and, after the very brief reign of Lady Jane Grey, his older sister, Mary, became queen. It did not prove to be a happy time for the people of England. Unlike her brother and her younger sister, Elizabeth, Mary was a fanatic Catholic who sought to bring England back into the fold of the Roman Church. Over 280 religious dissenters were burned at the stake during her five-year rule, earning her the nickname ‘Bloody Mary’. All her attempts to return England to Catholicism were reversed after her death by her much more popular sister, the ‘Virgin Queen’ Elizabeth I.

7. Charles I (r. 1625–49)

Charles was a man who had an unshakeable belief in the divine right of kings to rule a country as they saw fit. The king’s stubbornness and disregard for Parliament led to the English Civil War in 1642, which eventually led to Charles’s capture, imprisonment, trial, and execution.

The monarchy was abolished after Charles’s death, which surely places him at the top of the list of worst English monarchs of all time. After 11 years of unpopular rule by the puritan general Oliver Cromwell and, briefly, by his son Richard, Charles’s son, Charles II, was invited to become king. He proved to be much more popular than his stubborn father.

8. James II (r. 1685-1688)

People were prepared to give James II the benefit of the doubt when he ascended the throne following the death of his brother, Charles II, in 1685. However, it was inevitable that the Catholic king would clash with the Protestant country he governed, and that happened with the birth of James’s son, James Francis Edward Stuart. Following riots in London, James was deposed in favour of his Protestant daughter, Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. James attempted to retake the throne in 1690, but was defeated at the Battle of the Boyne and spent the rest of his life as an exile in France, viewed by his former subjects as a tyrant who had tried to impose his religion on a country that had already rejected it following the bloody reign of Mary I.

9. George IV (r. 1820-1830)

In his younger days, the witty and culturally refined Prince George was well regarded by the public, earning him the nickname ‘the first gentleman of England’. However, his disastrous marriage to (and subsequent appalling treatment of) Caroline of Brunswick and his incredibly lavish, taxpayer-funded lifestyle that left George morbidly obese and riddled with gout, turned him into one of the most despised monarchs ever to sit on the throne. A more contemptible, cowardly, selfish, unfeeling dog does not exist,’ one of George’s courtiers confided to his diary. ‘There have been good and wise kings but not many of them and this I believe to be one of the worst.’

10. Edward VIII (r. 20 January 1936 – 11 December 1936)

A playboy with very little interest in court protocols or the constitutional conventions of the United Kingdom, both Edward’s father, George V, and the country’s prime minister, Stanley Baldwin, worried that he would be a disastrous king. He proved them right when, after just 326 days on the throne, Edward VIII abdicated the throne due to his refusal to drop his plan to marry the American divorcee, Wallace Simpson. Created Duke of Windsor after his abdication, Edward continued to be a liability even after giving up the throne. Suspected of being a Nazi sympathiser who could be a useful pawn for Adolf Hitler, Edward was packed off to Barbados to be the island’s Governor General to get him out of the way. After the war, he lived for the rest of his life in exile, shunned by his family and loathed by many of the subjects he had turned his back on.

HAS HISTORY REPEATED ITSELF

The Royal family have been deeply wounded by Harry’s willingness to wash his dirty laundry in public. Harry’s reasoning of… I want people to gain strength of me airing my concerns and complaints publicly and that its ok to speak our mind to millions of people has been seen in the U.K. with a typically British rebuke.

We all have problems, stop your whinging, and crack on!

The tide has shifted as Americans are now becoming weary of the drama and the absence of actual work or philanthropy.

Polls indicate that Meghan and Harry's popularity in the United States has been rapidly declining in recent months, particularly since the publication of Prince Harry's tell-all memoir Spare.

After Spare, the couple has remained in the news, with primetime comedians and talk show hosts making fun of them. That can’t last forever.

Let us look at what if any similarities are there between Harry and, some would say ‘Meg-again’ and Edward and Wallace Simpson.

A popular, playful prince falls in love with a strong-willed US divorcee, who ends up vilified by a hostile British press.

In Harry and Meghan, some royal watchers see echoes of Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, the couple at the heart of the abdication crisis eight decades ago. But does the comparison hold up? It could do if the Duke and Duchess of Sussex end up reliving the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's unhappy exile.

In December 1936, The King gave up his throne and an Empire of half a billion souls so he could wed a woman who was divorcing her second husband.

The public vitriol spewed on his bride-to-be, Wallis Simpson, might strike a chord with the latest American to marry into Britain's royal family.

On top of being condemned as a social climber from a Baltimore, Maryland, row-house, Simpson was reviled as a cheap adventuress, a lesbian, a nymphomaniac, a Nazi spy, and a hermaphrodite.

She was portrayed as a sexual enchantress who supposedly learned "ancient Chinese skills" in the brothels of Shanghai, where her first husband, a US Navy pilot, had been stationed.

But the media's attacks on Simpson weren't just in print.

Daily Express reporters hurled bricks through the window of her rented Regent's Park, London, home, the newspaper's owner, Lord Beaverbrook, would later acknowledge.

How might Harry and Meghan make money? To escape the clearly unpleasant approaches, Wallace was housed in Felixstowe, Suffolk during the abdication.

She wrote in her autobiography: “My first impression of the little house in Felixstowe was dismaying.

“It was tiny, there was barely room for the three of us (two friends and herself), plus a cook and a maid, to squeeze into it.

“The only sounds were the melancholy boom of the sea breaking on the deserted beach and the rustling of the wind around the shuttered cottages. No hint of distant concern penetrated Felixstowe. When I walked down to town for the mail and the newspapers not a head turned . . . on fair days, we used to walk alone on the beach and for all the attention ever paid to us, we could have been in Tasmania.”

As the abdication crisis loomed, Simpson fled to France, pursued across the country by reporters to Cannes.

She evaded this "ravenous besieging army", as she described them, in car chases and sometimes by crawling through bathroom windows.

The reality of course is very different from then to now. Harry and Meghan's decision to step back from royal duties is nowhere near as constitutionally seismic given that Simpson was accused of almost destroying the British monarchy and Empire. People were terrified about divorced women and thought it was going to herald a wicked society where everyone would get divorced. Edward was King and Harry is sixth in line to the throne - he's never going to be King.

Simpson received sack-loads of hate mail, much of it misogynistic. She wrote in her memoirs: "There can be few expletives applicable to my sex that were missing from my morning tray."

But some of the strongest invective came from other women. According to Hugo Vickers' biography, Behind Closed Doors, the Tragic, Untold Story of Wallis Simpson, the Queen once said: "The two people who have caused me the most trouble in my life are Wallis Simpson and Hitler." Continuing that theme, Simpson's childhood friend, Mary Kirk, who married the royal consort's cuckolded second husband, Ernest Simpson, wrote in a diary of her erstwhile love rival: "I think of her as people think of Hitler, an evil force… full of animal cunning".

Princess Margaret referred to her uncle's lover as "that ghastly woman". The popular narrative endures that Edward - as has been said of Harry - was a wimp manipulated by an ambitious and demanding lover. But despite Simpson's reputation as "the woman who stole the King", Edward had always found royal duties unbearably tedious. Like Meghan and Harry, he dreamt of escaping to live in Canada. Alan "Tommy" Lascelles, his assistant private secretary, said he realised after a long conversation with the prince in 1927 that "words like 'decency', 'honesty', 'duty', 'dignity' and so on meant absolutely nothing to him". The royal consigliere concluded Edward was "an archangel ruined".

As Harry and Meghan steer a new course, they will no doubt seek to avoid drifting into the sort of aimless existence led by the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

Aside from Edward's wartime spell as governor of the Bahamas, neither he nor his wife ever worked again.

Olivette Otele, Britain's first female black history professor, points out that while Meghan has been a successful actress, activist and lifestyle blogger, Simpson never had a job in her life.

A miniature court in exile surrounded by emblems of royalty, Edward and Wallis spent the rest of their lives sponging off wealthy friends.

Like Harry and Meghan, Edward and Wallis hobnobbed with Hollywood royalty, hosting movie stars such as Richard Burton and Marlene Dietrich at their French country retreat.

Edward had little to do other than play golf. He professed no regrets about his 11-month reign, though his stories too often began with the words: "When I was King..."

He blamed everyone but himself for his abdication, from Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin to the Queen Mother. "Twenty years I worked for my country, and they kicked me out on my ass," the embittered duke told a friend.

Perhaps the greatest irony of all for the so-called fairy-tale romance of the century is that most biographers agree that Edward had cast aside his crown for a woman who did not even really love him.

On the Windsor’s' long evenings together, whisky would be served after dinner and "they had nothing to say to each other, so the contents of the decanter just went slowly down, down, down", recalled their private secretary, John Utter.

According to Andrew Morton's book Wallis in Love, Simpson's heart belonged to her friend, Herman Rodgers, a wealthy Yale graduate.

The duchess is said to have made this stunning confession to Rodgers' second wife on their wedding day in 1950.

The Windsor’s were also peeved by their fading fame.

Charles Pick, publisher of the duchess' 1956 memoirs The Heart Has Its Reasons, said that when they first met to discuss her book Simpson rose from a chaise longue to complain about being pushed off the newspaper front pages by Marilyn Monroe.

In 1966 the duke and duchess took a train to Vienna, Austria, and grumbled about the paparazzi they expected to find lurking at their destination.

But an aide noticed they could not hide their disappointment when no photographers materialised.

As Harry and Meghan embrace a kind of semi-exile, they might do well to bear in mind some words of advice from Shakespeare.

In Henry IV, Part I, the king rebukes his son, Prince Harry, for shirking his duty and suggests he has "mingled his royalty with cap ‘ring fools".

"For thou has lost thy princely privilege," the monarch berates his heir. "Not an eye / But is aweary of thy common sight."

And yet even Prince Harry saw the light, (or at least the English playwright William Shakespeare did), knowing what his true destiny to be, in turn rebuking his friends, notably Sir John Falstaff:

I know you all, and will awhile uphold

The unyoked humour of your idleness.

Yet herein will I imitate the sun,

Who doth permit the base contagious clouds

To smother up his beauty from the world,

That when he please again to be himself,

Being wanted, he may be more wondered at

By breaking through the foul and ugly mists

Of vapours that did seem to strangle him.

If all the year were playing holidays,

To sport would be as tedious as to work;

But when they seldom come, they wished-for come,

And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents.

So, when this loose behaviour I throw off

And pay the debt I never promisèd,

By how much better than my word I am,

By so much shall I falsify men’s hopes;

And like bright metal on a sullen ground,

My reformation, glitt’ring o’er my fault,

Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes

Than that which hath no foil to set it off.

I’ll so offend to make offence a skill,

Redeeming time when men think least I will.

(I.ii.173–195)

Prince Harry addresses this monologue to Falstaff and his friends, even though they have just left the room, leaving Harry all alone. It is in this speech that Harry first reveals his deception. His idling with the Boar’s Head company is all an act, and when the need arises, he will cast off the act and reveal his true noble nature. Harry tells the departed Falstaff that he “will a while uphold / The unyoked humour of your idleness,” but that, just as the sun permits itself to be covered by clouds so that the people who miss its light will be all the happier when it reappears, he too will eventually emerge from the cloud cover of his lower-class friends.

Harry says that people quickly grow used to and tire of anything that is familiar: if every day were a holiday, he says, then holidays would seem as tiresome as work, because “nothing pleaseth but rare accidents.”

Therefore, Harry concludes that by earning the people’s disapproval with his current behaviour, he sets himself up to appear more glorious when he finally decides to earn their approval, since they will not take his high merit for granted. This quote is extremely important to the play because it establishes the dramatic irony of Harry’s character, known to only the audience and the prince himself. It also exposes the complexities and ambiguities of Harry’s mind, showing an apparently virtuous young man who can manipulate and lie to others to achieve his somewhat selfish, albeit important, goals.

We will probably not see Harry Windsor, or Meghan again, in attendance at a Royal occasion until the death of Kings Charles III, unless of course he recognises and embraces the calling he was born in to and disseminates between what was never his but what could be, whilst still being a family man. Under the current relationship between the couple from California, unlikely.

MONARCHS OF INFLUENCE

1. Alfred the Great (r. 871-899)

Alfred spent much of his reign running guerrilla raids against the Vikings who had pushed him back to the West Country. He led a successful charge at Edington and chased Guthrum to his camp at Chippenham. After two weeks, Guthrum surrendered. Alfred insisted that he accept the Christian God and be baptized. Guthrum accepted and Alfred named him Ethelstan. Alfred had a few years of peace to implement some of his plans: restructure the army, build defensive walls in selective cities, and set up public schools. Alfred died in c. 899. He commissioned the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, a source of information for the history of the English language. In the 6 C., Alfred was given the epithet “The Greatest”.

2. Richard I (1157-1199)

Richard was the son of King Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine. He alternately lived in England and France with his mother.

Richard led a relentless two-month siege of Castillon-sur-Agen and was victorious. He acquired the name ‘the Lionheart’ for his brave leadership.

King Henry II died in 1189 and Richard became king. He went on the Third Crusade and took possession of Cyprus for England. Richard made a three-year peace treaty with Saladin, a Muslim leader, that allowed Christian pilgrims to travel to Jerusalem. Richard is respected for his triumphs at the Third Crusade. He also introduced the heraldic design – Royal Arms of England (three lions), the national symbol of England.

3. Edward I (r. 1272-1307)

One of the most effective English kings, and one of Scotland's greatest adversaries! Through his campaigns against Scotland, he would come to be known after his death as 'Scottorum malleus' – the Hammer of the Scots. Intelligent and impatient, Edward proved to be a highly effective king. He managed to control and placate the unruly English barons. He defeated the Welsh, & consolidated his position, building a series of castles across Wales (Caernarfon Castle), in 1284 Edward issued the Statute of Rhuddlan that effectively annexed Wales and made it a province of England. The title Prince of Wales was handed to Edward's eldest son, Prince Edward (later Edward II) – a practise that continues to this day.

4. Henry VIII (r. 1509-1547)

Yes, he's made it on our list again! Along with his appalling behaviour he was also quite brilliant. He studied theology, music, and languages. His infamy is legendary, and his charismatic leadership, formidable physical and mental strength, and his stubborn defence to the national interest was commendable. A superb statesmen, Henry and Wolsey organised a congress in 1518, an ambitious attempt at a European wide peace settlement;, this they signed the ‘Universal and Perpetual Peace’ with France, followed up with the lavish festival, the Field of Cloth of Gold, which glorified diplomacy as the new power. This placed England firmly at the centre of European politics. Henry brought a zeal to government. His emphasis on parliament turned it from an occasional king’s court into a central pillar of English constitution. By Royal Decree he established the Royal College of Physicians. He mapped the coastline of England and fortified it. He patronised some of the best artists of his day; arts & architecture flourished. It was under Henry, not Elizabeth, that the great art forms of sonnet and blank verse were created. When he issued the first official Complete Works of Chaucer, Henry invented a national poet, a repository of England and Englishness: a literary past that would run alongside the new history of England. For many it was he who started the very idea of what it was to be English.

5. Elizabeth I (r. 1558-1603)

A mother murdered by her father & imprisoned by her half-sister for 3 years was her introduction to political life. After becoming Queen, she passed the Act of Supremacy, establishing the Church of England and the Act of Uniformity, creating a common prayer book. She devised a compromise between Catholicism & Protestantism with the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563. Under her stewardship, the country’s navy became the strongest in the world, notably the defeat of the “Spanish Armada” in 1588. It was one of the greatest military victories. She also passed hundreds of laws on shipping, commerce, industry, currency reform, roads, relief for the poor, & agriculture.

6. Charles II (r. 1630-1685)

The early years of Charles's reign saw an appalling plague (1665) and the Great Fire in 1666 which led to the substantial rebuilding of the city of London. Between 1665 and 1667 England was at war with the Dutch (the Second Anglo-Dutch War), ending in a Dutch victory. In 1670, Charles signed a secret treaty with Louis XIV of France.

He undertook to convert to Catholicism and support the French against the Dutch (Third Anglo-Dutch War 1672-1674), in return for which he would receive subsidies from France, thus enabling some limited room for manoeuvre with parliament.

Charles's reign saw the rise of colonisation and trade in India, the East Indies and America (the British captured New York from the Dutch in 1664), and the Passage of Navigation Acts that secured Britain's future as a sea power. He founded the Royal Society in 1660. and art and literature continued to flourish.

7. Victoria I (r. 1837-1901)

Queen Victoria restored the reputation of a monarchy tarnished by the extravagance of her royal uncles. She also shaped a new role for the Royal Family, reconnecting it with the public through civic duties. At just 4ft 11in tall, Victoria was a towering presence as a symbol of her Empire. She and her husband Albert and their nine children came to symbolise a new, confident age. Britain’s second longest reigning monarch, Queen Victoria, was on the throne for over 63 years, until her death on 22nd January 1901. She was the first British monarch to take up residence in Buckingham Palace, following the strict childhood that she had experienced growing up in

Kensington Palace. During her reign, Queen Victoria expanded the British Empire, so much so that by the end of the century it would cover a fifth of the worlds surface.. The century also saw huge advancements across the fields of medicine, transportation, communication and industry. It saw inventions such as the telegraph, the bicycle, the internal combustion engine and the developments of antiseptic and anaesthetics. All of which happened during what we now refer to as the “Victorian Era”.

Victoria would be known as the “grandmother of Europe,” as her forty-two grandchildren were part of the royal families in Germany, Greece, Norway, Romania, Russia, Spain, and Sweden.

Her husband, Albert is widely credited with having placed the organisation of the royal household on a stable and organised footing. He ensured it operated within budget, put in place streamlined and efficient staff, and began the professional management of royal collections and properties.

Through his engagement with organisations and public movements, Albert showed how royals could actively involve themselves in order to manufacture and manipulate their public image and strengthen their position. While most European monarchs would lose their crowns in 1848, it was arguably due to the British public’s belief that their monarchy supported them that they retained theirs.

8. Elizabeth II (r. 1952-2022)

The longest-reigning British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II was a much-loved figure in the United Kingdom and across the world. She passed away peacefully at Balmoral Castle in Scotland at age 96 on Sept. 8, 2022, after having recently marked 70 years on the throne. During her lifetime, the queen witnessed pivotal moments in history and interacted with many key figures who shaped global events, including prime ministers Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher.

Born in 1926, the queen was a direct descendant of many famed British rulers including King James VI, Mary Queen of Scots, and King Robert II of Scotland.

Yet the royal system she was born into was very different from that of her ancestors. In fact, the queen — then Princess Elizabeth — and her family faced a series of crises that would determine whether the monarchy, or indeed the United Kingdom, would survive.

INFLUENCED BY KING GEORGE VI

During the Second World War, the future looked bleak for Britain when the Nazi regime mounted a heavy bombing campaign that became known as the Blitz. Targeting British civilians, landmarks, and indeed virtually anything in sight, German bombers did their utmost to make British cities — especially London — a living hell for residents. In addition, German U-Boats lurking in the Atlantic sought to cut off supplies from the British Isles.

Despite the acute danger posed by the bombings, the queen’s father, King George VI, chose to remain with his people instead of fleeing to a safe location. When it was suggested that the family take refuge elsewhere, his wife, the queen mother, famously said: “The children won’t go without me. I won’t leave the king. And the king will never leave.”

PUBLIC SERVICE

Elizabeth ascended to the throne after her father’s death in 1952 and was crowned on June 2, 1953.

The role of the sovereign is largely ceremonial in today’s Britain. Thus, when she acceded to the throne, many in the public questioned the relevance of the British monarchy — criticisms that persisted throughout the queen’s reign. However the queen expressed the belief — which she demonstrated with actions throughout her lifetime — that some traditions are worth saving.

Using television to deliver her first Christmas broadcast in 1957, the queen emphasized that her role as sovereign would be one of public service. Referring to herself as a “representative” of her people, the queen was known for her great skill at diplomacy and strengthened ties between the United Kingdom and other nations over many decades. On May 16, 1991, she became the first British monarch to address the U.S. Congress.

She was involved with countless charities and initiatives to improve peoples’ lives. One such initiative was The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, which sponsored medical initiatives to treat eye conditions and prevent blindness in Africa, Australia, and India.

Environmentally conscious, the queen planted more than 1,500 trees across the world during her lifetime and spoke alongside famed environmental advocate David Attenborough. For her Platinum Jubilee, she started an initiative called the Queen’s Green Canopy to encourage public involvement in planting trees. So far, thousands of trees have been planted in the United Kingdom as a result. The queen, a deeply religious woman, served as the head of the Church of England and was also commander-in-chief of Britain’s armed forces. In her younger years, she became an iconic sight riding proudly in uniform at the trooping of the colour on her favourite horse, Burmese. Although her death truly marks the end of an era, the queen left behind a legacy that will ensure that she holds a high place in history for many years to come.

THE ROYAL FAMILY BENEFITS US

And so, as we move forward, into the second Carolean era and wait for His Majesty’s redefined outlook on the role of the British Monarchy and how it can influence and support the U.K. and beyond, and especially what roles individuals will be holding, and playing out, we look at what the true value of this 1000 + year old establishment means to the taxpayer:

For those that think the Royal Family is not worth keeping as they 'hold no value'.....(?)

The economic benefits generated by the Monarchy come at a very low cost to the British nation, equal to only £4.50 per person per year or just over 1 penny a day. The total costs of the Monarchy, totalling approximately £292 million, include the Sovereign Grant, earnings from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall ceded to the Queen and the Prince of Wales, and security expenses, among others. A significant proportion of these costs is in fact incurred by residence maintenance, staff salaries, and travel expenditures required by any head of state.

The estimated total worth of the UK Monarchy. Growing every year since the inception of the study in 2012, the value of the British Monarchy now amounts to approximately £67.5 billion.

The Monarchy’s tangible assets – the Crown Estate, the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, and the Royal Collection, including the Crown Jewels – account for £25.5 billion. The intangible value, understood as the present value of the benefits that the Monarchy is expected to bring the UK economy over the years, constitutes the remaining £42 billion.

As an example, in the year of 2017 the Monarchy generated a gross uplift of £1.766 billion to the UK economy. The contribution includes the Crown Estate’s surplus as well as the Monarchy’s indirect effect on various industries. Reports are now being published that this figure is now at £2 billion to the UK economy.

The respect for the institution boosts the price and volume premium of brands boasting a Royal Warrant or a Coat of Arms; the appeal of pomp and circumstance set in living royal residences draws millions of tourists; the mystique surrounding the Monarchy adds to the popularity of shows like The Crown and Victoria that offer a glimpse of the private lives of the Royal Family.

The Monarchy’s tangible assets – the Crown Estate, the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, and the Royal Collection, including the Crown Jewels – account for £25.5 billion. The intangible value, understood as the present value of the benefits that the Monarchy is expected to bring the UK economy over the years, constitutes the remaining £42 billion. As an example, in the year of 2017 the Monarchy generated a gross uplift of £1.766 billion to the UK economy. The contribution includes the Crown Estate’s surplus as well as the Monarchy’s indirect effect on various industries.

The respect for the institution boosts the price and volume premium of brands boasting a Royal Warrant or a Coat of Arms; the appeal of pomp and circumstance set in living royal residences draws millions of tourists; the mystique surrounding the Monarchy adds to the popularity of shows like The Crown and Victoria that offer a glimpse of the private lives of the Royal Family. The Monarchy is Britain’s national treasure, both symbolically and economically. Especially in the age of Brexit, Britain can rely on royal diplomacy to facilitate trade relations with the Commonwealth and the rest of the world.

For those that see their position with envy.... they have no privacy, are hounded daily by the press, by politicians and the public, are written about in countless articles, with many false, inaccurate, and misunderstood stories published, some of us have experienced that first hand, and continue to smile and say nothing. They are normal people in extraordinary positions, their life is one of service, some by choice, and I think they deserve "a fair shake". And Paddington rocks!

LOOKING FORWARD

The role of the British Royal Family both in the United Kingdom and abroad has evolved over time, and it is likely to continue to do so in the future.

The Family serves as a unifying symbol of national identity and tradition. They also have ceremonial and representational duties, including attending public events and hosting foreign dignitaries. The monarchy also plays a role in the governance of the country, as the King is required to give assent to laws passed by Parliament.

From a grass roots level, charities are delighted if a member Royal associate themselves to their cause, bringing in much needed publicity and revenue.

In the Commonwealth, the British Royal Family has historically played a significant role in promoting and strengthening ties between member countries. The King is the symbolic head of the Commonwealth, and members of the Royal Family often undertake official visits to member countries to promote cultural and diplomatic ties.

Globally, the Royal Family can be seen as a cultural export of the United Kingdom, with the popularity of figures such as Prince William and Kate Middleton helping to promote British values and culture overseas.

As for how the Royal Family should evolve, this is a matter of ongoing debate and discussion. Some argue that the institution should become more modern and inclusive, with a greater focus on diversity and representation. Others argue that the Royal Family should remain largely unchanged, as a symbol of tradition and continuity.

Ultimately, any changes to the role of the Royal Family will depend on the views of the British people and the political climate of the time. However, it is likely that the institution will continue to evolve over time, adapting to changing social, cultural, and political norms both in the United Kingdom and abroad.

The size of the Royal Family has fluctuated over time, with some members being added or removed depending on various factors such as births, marriages, and deaths. At present, the core members of the Royal Family include the King, his Queen, the Prince & Princess of Wales, Princess Anne, Prince Edward and their respective families. There are also other members of the family who carry out official duties and engagements on behalf of the monarchy.

The size of the Royal Family and the roles of its members are ultimately determined by the monarch and their advisers. As mentioned previously, King Charles will choose to make changes to the size and structure of the Family during his reign, though Princess Anne has already mentioned in a recent interview it may not be wise to do so.

It is worth noting that the Royal Family has a significant cultural and symbolic value to the United Kingdom, and many people around the world have a strong interest in the institution. As such, any changes to the size or structure of the Royal Family would likely be subject to the government, other relevant stakeholders. public scrutiny and national debate. And lest not gore William and Kate will probably have an initial overriding influence on how matters will progress as they will be handed the mantle in the not-too-distant future.

Before printing, think about your environment. Please note any advice contained or attached in this document of future reports or emails, or in previous correspondence, is informal and given purely as guidance unless otherwise explicitly stated. Our views on price are not intended as a formal valuation and should not be relied upon as such. They are given during our estate agency role. No liability is given to any third party and the figures suggested are in accordance with Professional Standards PS1 and PS2 of the RICS Valuation – Global Standards 2017 incorporating the IVSC International Valuation Standards issued June 2017 and effective from 1 July 2017. Any advice attached is not a formal ("Red Book") valuation, and neither Juszt Capital nor the author can accept any responsibility to any third party who may seek to rely upon it, as a whole or any part as such. If formal advice is required, this will be explicitly stated along with our understanding of limitations and purpose. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard emails, Juszt Capital LTD cannot guarantee that attachments are virus free or compatible with your systems and does not accept liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced. Juszt Capital LTD reserves the right to monitor all email communications through its internal and external networks. Juszt Capital is a Limited liability company registered at 9 Byford Court, Crockatt road, Hadleigh, Suffolk IP7 6RD in England and Wales no.0768976