And now for something completely different…

Today is the last day of the financial/tax year – in the UK.
So today’s article has nothing to do with tax, Brexit or climate change.
It has however something to do with an old gentlemen in hospital for a hip replacement.
That man of course is HRH the Duke of Edinburgh. Readers will have noted that the image above is NOT that of HRH the Duke of Edinburgh!
Whilst the operation is something many folk have, an operation such as this on a man the age of the Duke is always a major thing.
We and we are sure our readers, will wish a speedy recovery for HRH.
As time goes by, thoughts inevitably turn to the succession. The politicians are thinking about it and not just in this country but across the Commonwealth realms and the Commonwealth generally.
It is assumed that when there is eventually a change of monarch, Australia will re-examine whether or not the country becomes a republic. Politicians across the Commonwealth will discuss a new structure for deciding the head of the Commonwealth.
Things are going to change.
Change will take into account dates and the ages of “the Royals”.
Here are some dates and ages of folk:
On 26th April 2026, HM the Queen will celebrate her centenary; someone is going to have to send HM a telegram!
HRH the Duke of Edinburgh would be 104 years, 10 months, 17 days on that date.
HRH the Prince of Wales would be 77 years, 5 months, 13 days on that date.
HRH the Duke of Cambridge 43 years, 10 months, 6 days on that date.
HRH the Duke of Albany? 41 years, 7 months, 12 days on that date.
Clearly, these figures raise the question of succession.
At some point, baring disaster, the natural order of life’s events will bring about a situation where the Prince of Wales becomes in the now not too far distant future, the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich – in addition to his other titles.
This the British Gazette suggests will be an important point of time after which it will be helpful (for all concerned) were some decisions to be made.
We all know what will happen if no changes are made and no disasters take place.
Eventually, the Prince of Wales will succeed as King. As to the title of his Queen, the law is clear and unambiguous – but in the SAME WAY as divorced persons can legally remarry. The lady presently referred to as HRH the Duchess of Cornwall will become Queen Consort just as her predecessors did. [NB: We will expand on this in a subsequent article] But as the Royals and the politicians well know it is not just a case of “the law” and “precedent”. Today “the public” and it’s collective, contradictory and down right illogical views has to be taken into account.
Because at the end of the day, if there is little support for the institution of the monarchy, it will not survive.
This is why the suggestion that the Queen, “hand over in all but reign” to Prince Charles in a Regency Act when she turns 95 on Wednesday, 21st April 2021 would be a very great mistake.
GOTO: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4785166/Is-Queen-preparing-abdicate.html
FIRSTLY: the Daily Mail reporters have gone to print without doing all necessary research – sadly something not restricted to the DM! Such legislation would have to be enacted not just in this realm (the UK) but across the Queen’s other realms.
Now, clearly this is something that has been talked about and you can bet your bottom $ that the foreign & Commonwealth Office will have talked about this with their opposite numbers in the Commonwealth realms! The answer will doubtless have been that this would encourage the issue of a republic to be raised in these realms.
SECONDLY: there is NO practical need. There is very little that the Queen cannot hand over to her eldest son that requires legislation. The most obvious is the Royal Assent. This requires very little effort as it is been done by Commissioners and the Queen merely has to nod.
However, perhaps the most important aspect is the THIRD aspect: Just read at the comments in the Daily Mail’s article!
The people do NOT want Charles!
In the opinion of the British Gazette, the replacement of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with a Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be a very great shame. Not because “the Royals” are the epitome of virtue. They are not. But because of the alternative.
Of democracy, Sir Winston Churchill famously said; “It is a terrible system. It’s only redeeming feature is that it is better than the alternative!”
We would wish to paraphrase the Great Man vis-à-vis the monarchy.
All who would wish to dispense with the monarchy have to state what they would replace it with.
Their answer is invariably a ceremonial elected president. As they have in the Irish Republic.
The Irish, like the Icelanders, however have one great advantage: They have a relatively small population. This means that the person elected can command a respect unlike let us say, Germany where the President is a superannuated politician.
It is almost inevitable that were we to dispense with the House of Windsor we would end up with some PC virtue signalling superannuated politician like the present Speaker of the House of Commons.
Yes it would be cheaper. But there is one thing that LIFE has taught the editor of this organ: You get what you pay for!
This country’s “Royals” literally put this country on the map.
A long time ago, when she was “in the prime of her youth” the actress Raquel Welch (the image is that iconic shot from the film “One Million Years BC”) was commissioned to do half a day’s photo-shoot for a soft drinks company. This was in the 1960s. For that half day’s work she was paid US $ 500,000 – a vast amount today for half a day’s work. In the 1960s many times more so!
This is because of something called “the recognition factor”. This is why sporting stars get paid huge amounts of money for endorsing products and indeed why so many ordinary people are prepared to humiliate themselves on reality TV shows in order to become minor celebrities. This is because as a minor celebrity they may not be able (in 2018) to receive half a million dollars for half a day’s work but they might just get the same for a year’s work.
Be under no doubt: The hard headed executives who paid Raquel Welch $500K did so not because they were besotted with the lady but because her endorsement would generate far more than this in increased sales.
The FACT is that “the Royals” bring in far more money for “UK PLC” than they cost!
President Bercow would generate, well, not a lot!
What the British Gazette suggests is THIS: That a generation is skipped.
That after suitable a period of mourning, the office Prince of Wales and the titles that go with it along with the Duchy of Cornwall are transferred from the present holder to the Duke of Cambridge causing the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to become the Prince and Princess of Wales. Prince Charles would remain the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich.
This would require an Act of Parliament.
Prince Charles could remain involved in public works as the head of the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme and also his own “Prince’s Trust”. It might even assist matters if he received a duplicate Greenwich barony but as a life peerage to enable him to have a seat and voice in the House of Lords – as a cross-bench peer.
Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall would become Camilla, Duchess of Edinburgh.
Thus the Queen would eventually be succeeded by HM King William V and Queen Catherine.
This in the opinion of the British Gazette will give those arguing and campaigning for the continued existence of the monarchy in Australia, Canada and New Zealand a far better chance of success.
The British Gazette happens to think this is important for we are of the opinion that the historical relationship exemplified in a common head of state is worth keeping.