The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #761  
Old 05-15-2011, 12:31 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Unless new LPs are issued restricting HRH to only the children of the eldest child of the monarch then there is no reason for them to lose the Princess title on marriage. Princess Akexandra, also a granddaughter of a monarch didn't.

That being said I can see Charles issuing such LPs.
I agree with you on this one. If Beatrice and Eugenie are settled in careers and/or married when Charles ascends the throne, I can very well see him issuing new LP and really downsizing the royal family. It may be very likely at that time that it will be obvious that B&E are not even needed to be CoS and therefore have no reason to retain the title Princess.
I also expect that Andrew would be quite upset about it too.

Who knows? Maybe the girls will get the "big break" from Oprah and renounce their titles having to make a choice between what's accepted as "royal protocol" and the bright lights of the entertainment/fashion world? Ok.. Ok.. I'm dreaming and should have been in bed a long time ago.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #762  
Old 05-15-2011, 12:36 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 5
As time rolls by the York Princesses will become the cousins of the Monarch and they will assume a position like the Gloucesters and the Kents. I am certain that there is more than enough call for the Royals to assume more duties so they can certainly go in that direction.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #763  
Old 05-15-2011, 12:38 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I agree with you on this one. If Beatrice and Eugenie are settled in careers and/or married when Charles ascends the throne, I can very well see him issuing new LP and really downsizing the royal family. It may be very likely at that time that it will be obvious that B&E are not even needed to be CoS and therefore have no reason to retain the title Princess.
I also expect that Andrew would be quite upset about it too.

Who knows? Maybe the girls will get the "big break" from Oprah and renounce their titles having to make a choice between what's accepted as "royal protocol" and the bright lights of the entertainment/fashion world? Ok.. Ok.. I'm dreaming and should have been in bed a long time ago.

For Beatrice not to be needed as a CoS The Queen will need to live to be 107 - assuming that Kate has a child next year - as that child will have to be 21 before Beatrice isn't needed. Charles will also have to be alive for another 23 years (to 86) - assuming that Kate has a second child the following year. If they have two or three years between children add those years on and if they wait a couple of years before having children then both the Queen and Charles have to live those years as well on top of the 22 I have already indicated.

The CoS are the next four adults in line of succession over 21 (except in the case of the heir apparent who takes on that role at 18).

There is very little chance that Beatrice won't be serving as a CoS at some time - her father also has to live all those years as do William and Harry.

If William and Kate have a child next year that child won't turn 21 until 2033 and a second child born the following year would be 21 in 2034. That is the earliest years in which Beatrice won't be needed as a CoS.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #764  
Old 05-15-2011, 12:40 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doulton View Post
As time rolls by the York Princesses will become the cousins of the Monarch and they will assume a position like the Gloucesters and the Kents. I am certain that there is more than enough call for the Royals to assume more duties so they can certainly go in that direction.

However the reports coming from BP are that the girls have been told that they won't be needed and if this is true then they can live normal lives away from the endless rounds of making small talk with people they will never see again.

The idea, put forward more than a decade ago, is that the number of royals will be reduced and by extension the number of things that royals do will also be reduced.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #765  
Old 05-15-2011, 12:54 AM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Would it take an act of Parliament to change the number of CoS's that are required? Or is that up to the Queen/King too? Or do both have to agree?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #766  
Old 05-15-2011, 01:03 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
Would it take an act of Parliament to change the number of CoS's that are required? Or is that up to the Queen/King too? Or do both have to agree?

As the number was defined by legislation it would need to be changed by legislation.

The number was first spelt out in the Regency Act 1937 and confirmed in the Regency Act 1953.

So to answer your question: It would take an Act of Parliament to change the number of CoS's.

As two are required at all times and there are only five currently eligible (Prince Philip is the fifth as the consort of the monarch) limiting to fewer than four also limits family activities e.g. say it is limited to the first two over 21 in Charles' reign he would never be able to go overseas with either of his sons during his reign as both of them would be needed to serve in the UK.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #767  
Old 05-15-2011, 02:53 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Plymouth, United States
Posts: 1,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Gloucesters and Kents will probably continue for another 10+ years each, with Charles' siblings having another 30+ years in them (maybe a few less for Anne). By then William's children should be entering the firm to take over from their great-aunts and great-uncles - thus no need for the York girls at all.
I doubt any of them have as long as you predict, tho you never know. I think the Gloucesters and Kents will be retiring in less than 10 years (they're in their early 70s now) and Ann, Andrew and Edward/Sophie might have 20 -25 years.

Who knows what the future will bring for the monarchy. Charles is in his early 60s already. If HM is able to carry out duties - even rarely - for another 10 years, he'll be in his 70s when he takes the throne.

A lot can happen in 10-15 years. It will be interesting.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #768  
Old 05-15-2011, 03:51 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bella View Post
I doubt any of them have as long as you predict, tho you never know. I think the Gloucesters and Kents will be retiring in less than 10 years (they're in their early 70s now) and Ann, Andrew and Edward/Sophie might have 20 -25 years.

Who knows what the future will bring for the monarchy. Charles is in his early 60s already. If HM is able to carry out duties - even rarely - for another 10 years, he'll be in his 70s when he takes the throne.

A lot can happen in 10-15 years. It will be interesting.

Royals don't retire - they might cut back but they work until they die or are incapictated. As long as they are fit enough the Gloucesters and Kents will continue doing what they are able to do into their 80s and 90s, if they live that long and that is another 10 or so years - particularly for the Gloucesters who are younger than the Kents. They would also take the view that if the Queen can do it at 85 so can we and the Duke of Kent is about 10 years younger than the Queen and the others younger still.

Anne easily will go until 85 or longer if she lives that long. To do less would be dereliction of duty on her part in her mind - she is as hidebound to duty as her parents. Edward and Andrew would have even longer left given that Andrew is just 51 and Edward still in his 40s - so 40 years left for them possibly.

An aging royal family with no young ones, outside of Charles' sons being wanted is very much the future - Charles doesn't see a need for the extras and that is also the view of many of the British public - the monarch and spouse, the heir and spouse and the next after that and the rest can fend for themselves - sad for royal watchers but that is the situation - not wanted by the family as part of the family business so having to fend for themselves.

I actually think Charles will be closer to 70 than 70 when he becomes King and that he will himself reign until well into his 90s.

William, on the other hand, I don't think will live into his 80s or 90s - mainly due to the drinking and smoking that he has done and continues to do on occasions as that damage is permanent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #769  
Old 05-15-2011, 06:26 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bronx, United States
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Unless new LPs are issued restricting HRH to only the children of the eldest child of the monarch then there is no reason for them to lose the Princess title on marriage. Princess Akexandra, also a granddaughter of a monarch didn't.

That being said I can see Charles issuing such LPs.
I don't think they can lose them at all. Any new rules would apply from that date forward I would assume. How can he strip them of something that they've had since birth?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #770  
Old 05-15-2011, 09:21 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by sliver_bic View Post
I don't think they can lose them at all. Any new rules would apply from that date forward I would assume. How can he strip them of something that they've had since birth?
As they hold titles by LPs issued by one King another monarch can remove those titles as the Queen did with the LPs in 1996 when she stripped the HRH from both Sarah and Diana after their divorces (notice the date of that LP relates to Diana's divorce and Sarah continued to use HRH from her divorce until those LPs were issued stripping her of that distinction).

If Charles was to tighten the LPs then is it perfectly possible that the girls would be prevailed upon to voluntarily stop using them as well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #771  
Old 05-15-2011, 09:24 PM
EllieCat's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 235
Quote:
I don't think they can lose them at all. Any new rules would apply from that date forward I would assume. How can he strip them of something that they've had since birth?
it's been done before, in 1917 I believe, when some of the princesses who were HH rather than HRH became Ladies. I can't remember their names sorry.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #772  
Old 05-15-2011, 09:28 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I agree with you on this one. If Beatrice and Eugenie are settled in careers and/or married when Charles ascends the throne, I can very well see him issuing new LP and really downsizing the royal family. It may be very likely at that time that it will be obvious that B&E are not even needed to be CoS and therefore have no reason to retain the title Princess.
I also expect that Andrew would be quite upset about it too.

Who knows? Maybe the girls will get the "big break" from Oprah and renounce their titles having to make a choice between what's accepted as "royal protocol" and the bright lights of the entertainment/fashion world? Ok.. Ok.. I'm dreaming and should have been in bed a long time ago.
Everyone is making great points about their titles and their futures so thanks. I wonder if they would say no or ask for lesser titles like ladies or something. Then again given the times I am not sure anyone would live the family,unless they marry a Catholic. Who knows maybe that will change.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #773  
Old 05-16-2011, 11:41 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Plymouth, United States
Posts: 1,307
Like I said, it will be interesting to see how things unfold in the BRF over the next decade or so. Stay tuned . . .
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #774  
Old 05-16-2011, 12:49 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
R
An aging royal family with no young ones, outside of Charles' sons being wanted is very much the future - Charles doesn't see a need for the extras and that is also the view of many of the British public - the monarch and spouse, the heir and spouse and the next after that and the rest can fend for themselves - sad for royal watchers but that is the situation - not wanted by the family as part of the family business so having to fend for themselves.

I actually think Charles will be closer to 70 than 70 when he becomes King and that he will himself reign until well into his 90s.

William, on the other hand, I don't think will live into his 80s or 90s - mainly due to the drinking and smoking that he has done and continues to do on occasions as that damage is permanent.
It's actually hard to predict how long people will live - their parents' longevity isn't necessarily a good predictor. I thought it was, but then I read an article which said genetics doesn't seem to predict longevity very well. It only starts playing a greater role in people whose parents lived to be over 100, and even then, it's not that significant. So given how long the Queen Mother lived, the Queen probably does have a good chance of living quite long, but who really knows about the others?

I find it sad that Charles, and the public, seem to want to cut back the monarchy so much. I feel like once the royal family shrinks to just the monarch and his or her immediate family, the next step is no monarchy at all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #775  
Old 05-16-2011, 03:04 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllieCat View Post
it's been done before, in 1917 I believe, when some of the princesses who were HH rather than HRH became Ladies. I can't remember their names sorry.

The example I immediately think of is Princess Patricia, who renounced her Princely Title when she married the The Hon Alexander Ramsay in 1919.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #776  
Old 05-16-2011, 03:07 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
As they hold titles by LPs issued by one King another monarch can remove those titles as the Queen did with the LPs in 1996 when she stripped the HRH from both Sarah and Diana after their divorces (notice the date of that LP relates to Diana's divorce and Sarah continued to use HRH from her divorce until those LPs were issued stripping her of that distinction).

If Charles was to tighten the LPs then is it perfectly possible that the girls would be prevailed upon to voluntarily stop using them as well.

Could I just help a bit with this one, Bertie? The LPs were not STRICTLY necessary so far as Sarah was concerned, because she did in fact lose the HRH on her divorce - the reason that the LPs were necessary in her case was because it was necessary to reiterate the position because Sarah was claiming that she was still HRH! In other words they were a clarification.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #777  
Old 05-16-2011, 08:49 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
Could I just help a bit with this one, Bertie? The LPs were not STRICTLY necessary so far as Sarah was concerned, because she did in fact lose the HRH on her divorce - the reason that the LPs were necessary in her case was because it was necessary to reiterate the position because Sarah was claiming that she was still HRH! In other words they were a clarification.

I have official invitation sent from BP between the divorce and the LPs which refers to her as HRH - if BP was sending it out then she was still HRH - I take it that BP wouldn't have allowed the invitation to go out with HRH on it if that wasn't the case - it was for an eveing with HRH Sarah, Duchess of York and was also issued by the High Commission here in Australia - it was to my mother who had worked there in the 1940s and was for a reunion at which Sarah was to be the guest of honour - some time after the LPs were issued but the invitation was issued in the time between the divorce and the LPs and was sent from BP to the High Commission and then the High Commission sent them to the invitees.

And of course there was the ongoing discussion about Diana losing the HRH - and that took the LPs to do that - as that was part of the divorce settlement - that she would give it up.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #778  
Old 05-16-2011, 09:04 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmay286 View Post
It's actually hard to predict how long people will live - their parents' longevity isn't necessarily a good predictor. I thought it was, but then I read an article which said genetics doesn't seem to predict longevity very well. It only starts playing a greater role in people whose parents lived to be over 100, and even then, it's not that significant. So given how long the Queen Mother lived, the Queen probably does have a good chance of living quite long, but who really knows about the others?

I find it sad that Charles, and the public, seem to want to cut back the monarchy so much. I feel like once the royal family shrinks to just the monarch and his or her immediate family, the next step is no monarchy at all.
rmay I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. Start "shrinking" the monarchy, demoting HRH's to Mr/Miss/Mrs and what do you have??

I am all for a cutback on ostentation in times of economic hardship, but let's face it...either you want a ROYAL family or a Republic.

It's a slipperly slope to start trying to have it both ways, imo.

BTW...I like and admire the Prince of Wales but his desire for "cutbacks" only seem to apply to other members of the family and not ever himself. Just like the late Queen Mother, he leads an extremely luxurious lifestyle and stubbornly refuses to give up any of his perks.

He reportedly wanted the Earl of Wessex to move out of Bagshot Park because the estate is so huge and costly...but meanwhile he himself only travels by Rolls Royce and throws glittering dinner parties at Highgrove and Clarence House with no cost spared.

I don't get it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #779  
Old 05-16-2011, 09:30 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
rmay I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. Start "shrinking" the monarchy, demoting HRH's to Mr/Miss/Mrs and what do you have??

I am all for a cutback on ostentation in times of economic hardship, but let's face it...either you want a ROYAL family or a Republic.

It's a slipperly slope to start trying to have it both ways, imo.

BTW...I like and admire the Prince of Wales but his desire for "cutbacks" only seem to apply to other members of the family and not ever himself. Just like the late Queen Mother, he leads an extremely luxurious lifestyle and stubbornly refuses to give up any of his perks.

He reportedly wanted the Earl of Wessex to move out of Bagshot Park because the estate is so huge and costly...but meanwhile he himself only travels by Rolls Royce and throws glittering dinner parties at Highgrove and Clarence House with no cost spared.

I don't get it.

Charles knows that Edward can't afford Bagshot himself and that if Edward is to continue to live there then that he, Charles and in time William, will have to pick up the tab and he doesn't agree with that idea.

Charles also is very conscious that the public see the vast majority of the royal family as spoungers who do nothing and wants to slim down the family to improve the image - fewer seen to be wasting taxpayers money would assist the image of the family.

With William's attitude as well the BRF will soon be a shadow of the once glorious institution and simply be a nothingness of 'normality' with no glamour or anything else to recommend it e.g. Kate not wanting Ladies in Waiting takes away part of the image of the royal ladies and reduces them to the same as everyone else.

Charles also isn't that close to his brothers and I think a little jealous of the relationship that they had growing up with their parents that he and Anne didn't have because first of, while he was very young, his mother preferred to be in Malta whenever possible with his father and then she became Queen and was away for very long periods of time and then he goes to boarding school but meanwhile the younger brothers are born and enjoy playing in Mummy's study - something he was never allowed to do etc. I think he very much wants the royal family to be Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry and Harry's spouse and then their children but that the rest can disappear.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #780  
Old 05-16-2011, 10:38 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
So Charles's wish for the future of the royal family is partly based on public perception and economics, and partly based on him not being that close to his younger brothers? I guess that makes sense -- sort of like a family held corporation reducing the board of managers in order to save costs.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
career, education, princess beatrice, princess eugenie, royal duties, social life, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie: Old News and Photos Warren The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 93 09-11-2014 08:01 PM
Duties, Roles and Royal Training of the Princes JOY! Prince Harry and Prince William 214 02-20-2013 08:07 PM
Beatrice and Eugenie : Baby/child Pics: Part 1 Martine The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 133 03-04-2006 12:25 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess letizia princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:24 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]