Will The Queen's death strengthen or weaken the UK's union?

[Pistom]

We've seen a largely positive response the the Royal family this last week with a minority of protests against their very existence but I wonder if there will be an impact on the union of Great Britain with regards to any of the devolved nations?

Scotland obviously has some loud supporters whilst Wales has a largely irrelevant minority and Ireland has its own special set of issues.

[Muzzer79]

Time is key.

At present, there is a wave of support for the Royals after HM's death. Therefore any talk of splitting the union is out of the question in the short term.

But the next 12 months will be crucial. The King will either ingratiate himself further and build on the current support, or it will slip away.

How he handles certain situations will be keystones - Harry and Meghan being one, Andrew another, but also bigger issues like his plans to slim down the family and make it more streamlined.
The latter will be, overall, a popular move but it needs to be done tactfully.

Also, he (and the Wales') will need to get out on a world tour, particularly to visit key Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada. If they stay in, it will further bolster his support.

[sherman]

With Funeral planning and sorting out stuff , then the Coronation planning for (March/April?) there is no time left for Sturgeon to get herself sorted for an October referendum and then theres also the need for a General Election in 2024 so theres no chance of the UK government sanctioning a referendum in late 2023 or before a gfeneral election in 2024.

Scotland is pro union generally as there is more than 50% support for the pro union parties its just that vote is split over 3 +parties whereas indy votes are all for 1 party.

Edited by sherman on Thursday 15th September 09:32

[Rivenink]

Muzzer79 said:

Time is key.

At present, there is a wave of support for the Royals after HM's death. Therefore any talk of splitting the union is out of the question in the short term.

But the next 12 months will be crucial. The King will either ingratiate himself further and build on the current support, or it will slip away.

How he handles certain situations will be keystones - Harry and Meghan being one, Andrew another, but also bigger issues like his plans to slim down the family and make it more streamlined.
The latter will be, overall, a popular move but it needs to be done tactfully.

Also, he (and the Wales') will need to get out on a world tour, particularly to visit key Commonwealth countries like Australia and Canada. If they stay in, it will further bolster his support.

He's already annoyed the Welsh a little bit by not even doing the courtesy of telling the First Minister he wasn intending to make William the Prince of Wales before he did it.

On the wider points, I don't think Charles will have much effect on it.

The SNP are publicaly pro-monarchy, and would keep the Monarchy. I can see Scotland swanning off in the lifetime of Charles.

NI is going to be about Brexit and the GFA. I wouldn't like to say how things are going there, but it wouldn't surpise me if support for unification with Ireland becomes more and more popular.

The Welsh I don't think will go anywhere for a while.

[TheJimi]

I'm more or less an ignoramus in terms of the Royals, but I can't help shake the feeling that the Royal family has missed a huge trick by not having Charles abdicate in favour of William.

Edit: that theory isn't related to the question of the OP.

Edited by TheJimi on Thursday 15th September 11:35

[InitialDave]

I don't think the monarchy itself or Charles in particular are really much of a factor in how much unionism is favoured.

It's the politics and economics that will matter, especially things like how they square the circle regarding Brexit and Northern Ireland.

So I'd say it's much more a focus to be placed on Truss and Co than Charles.

[sherman]

TheJimi said:

I'm more or less an ignoramus in terms of the Royals, but I can't help shake the feeling that the Royal family has missed a huge trick by not having Charles abdicate in favour of William.

Charles has 70 years of wants to get sorted. First sign of proper ill health and he will abdicate. He wont go right up to the end.
Spain did similar.

[Tango13]

TheJimi said:

I'm more or less an ignoramus in terms of the Royals, but I can't help shake the feeling that the Royal family has missed a huge trick by not having Charles abdicate in favour of William.

The monarchy needs to be updated and the civil list trimmed which requires some decisions that will be less than popular with the likes of Andrew. Charles will make those decisions and leave a leaner monarchy that will be much more acceptable to the public.

Also Charles will stick it out as long as possible to protect William from having to do the job

[Randy Winkman]

Tango13 said:

TheJimi said:

I'm more or less an ignoramus in terms of the Royals, but I can't help shake the feeling that the Royal family has missed a huge trick by not having Charles abdicate in favour of William.

The monarchy needs to be updated and the civil list trimmed which requires some decisions that will be less than popular with the likes of Andrew. Charles will make those decisions and leave a leaner monarchy that will be much more acceptable to the public.

Also Charles will stick it out as long as possible to protect William from having to do the job

That's a good point. Charles wont necessarily think he's dong his son a favour by abdicating. Especially when William has a young family. It's a better job for a grandad really.

[TheJimi]

Yeah, that is indeed a good point, and not one I considered.

[Muzzer79]

TheJimi said:

I'm more or less an ignoramus in terms of the Royals, but I can't help shake the feeling that the Royal family has missed a huge trick by not having Charles abdicate in favour of William.

Edit: that theory isn't related to the question of the OP.

Edited by TheJimi on Thursday 15th September 11:35

Charles is 73, he obviously won't be on the throne even half as long as his mother.

I think he's going to be making some tough internal decisions to hand William an easier ride.

[Murph7355]

InitialDave said:

I don't think the monarchy itself or Charles in particular are really much of a factor in how much unionism is favoured.

It's the politics and economics that will matter, especially things like how they square the circle regarding Brexit and Northern Ireland.

So I'd say it's much more a focus to be placed on Truss and Co than Charles.

This.

Scotland was talking about keeping the Queen as His IIRC.

[ScotHill]

Living in Scotland, I can't see it having any effect. I honestly can't remember the last conversation I heard or overheard about independence, chances are it was within a few days of the last vote. A much bigger effect will be when Sturgeon goes, there are zero charismatic leaders on the horizon and independence will not have the nagging, annoying, thin-lipped service that it has been given over the last eight (long) years. If it weren't for daily Covid briefings we would have heard a lot less from her anyway, but no she needed to keep her face front and centre because she couldn't trust anyone else/there was no-one else to take up any kind of helm.

[paulw123]

Muzzer79 said:

TheJimi said:

I'm more or less an ignoramus in terms of the Royals, but I can't help shake the feeling that the Royal family has missed a huge trick by not having Charles abdicate in favour of William.

Edit: that theory isn't related to the question of the OP.

Edited by TheJimi on Thursday 15th September 11:35

Charles is 73, he obviously won't be on the throne even half as long as his mother.

I think he's going to be making some tough internal decisions to hand William an easier ride.

This, also allow Williams children to grow up a bit. He will do a good/difficult job and then hand it on to William.

[tim0409]

paulw123 said:

Muzzer79 said:

TheJimi said:

I'm more or less an ignoramus in terms of the Royals, but I can't help shake the feeling that the Royal family has missed a huge trick by not having Charles abdicate in favour of William.

Edit: that theory isn't related to the question of the OP.

Edited by TheJimi on Thursday 15th September 11:35

Charles is 73, he obviously won't be on the throne even half as long as his mother.

I think he's going to be making some tough internal decisions to hand William an easier ride.

This, also allow Williams children to grow up a bit. He will do a good/difficult job and then hand it on to William.

This was discussed in the main thread; King Charles explicitly said in his speech last week that he would follow the late Queen in his lifetime commitment to the role. He has no plans or intention of abdicating.

[Roderick Spode]

ScotHill said:

Living in Scotland, I can't see it having any effect. I honestly can't remember the last conversation I heard or overheard about independence, chances are it was within a few days of the last vote. A much bigger effect will be when Sturgeon goes, there are zero charismatic leaders on the horizon and independence will not have the nagging, annoying, thin-lipped service that it has been given over the last eight (long) years. If it weren't for daily Covid briefings we would have heard a lot less from her anyway, but no she needed to keep her face front and centre because she couldn't trust anyone else/there was no-one else to take up any kind of helm.

Very apt summary of Foghorn Dreghorn. The thin lipped one had to be front and centre of the media circus surrounding Covid, and has again made herself fairly prominent around the passing of HMQ, and the ascension of HMK. She is supposedly a monarchist in public, but behind the scenes she is likely pro-republican, and certainly vast swathes of her party and indy supporters are fiercely anti-monarchist and pro-republican. Their close and friendly relationship with the murderers of Sinn Fein IRA bear testament to this position.

I think the passing of HMQ and public outpouring of grief by the people of Scotland, have exposed the lie perpetuated by the SNP that the Scots hate the English and the institutions of state. The SNP have publicly professed their loyalty to the new Monarch. So long as King Charles plays things with a straight bat, I am of the opinion that the recent sharing of emotions has strengthened the Union.

[PurpleTurtle]

Rivenink said:

He's already annoyed the Welsh a little bit by not even doing the courtesy of telling the First Minister he wasn intending to make William the Prince of Wales before he did it.

Is this really a gripe? Surely it's just all part of the succession planning that was widely expected and has been planned for years.

Who else did the Welsh expect to get the PoW gig?

[ScotHill]

PurpleTurtle said:

Is this really a gripe? Surely it's just all part of the succession planning that was widely expected and has been planned for years.

Who else did the Welsh expect to get the PoW gig?

Tom Jones.

[InitialDave]

ScotHill said:

Tom Jones.

He wouldn't be able to accept, as it would be unusual.

[sugerbear]

Pistom said:

We've seen a largely positive response the the Royal family this last week with a minority of protests against their very existence but I wonder if there will be an impact on the union of Great Britain with regards to any of the devolved nations?

Scotland obviously has some loud supporters whilst Wales has a largely irrelevant minority and Ireland has its own special set of issues.

What has surprised me is the very short memory of how the Royals treated Diana. There has been a massive PR exercise since to rehabilitate the monarchy.