The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #341  
Old 01-03-2018, 09:42 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,958
Why ask them to retire? At the end of the day it won't be long until they are simply put, too old to undertake duties anyway so why force the issue now? None of their children will take on royal duties, the Duke of Kent is 82, Alexandra is 81, the Gloucesters are in their early 70s. It wouldn't surprise me if we do see them less and less when Charles is King but simply because they are all well past retirement age anyway and simply won't be able to keep up doing lots and lots of duties. I don't see a need to force the issue because they are "further away from the throne", they have nothing else to fall back on and I think IMO it would backfire on Charles somewhat if he tried to force them to retire.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 01-03-2018, 07:00 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,841
I am sure I read somewhere that the Duke of Kent made a comment that as long as his cousin, The Queen, was still working it would be wrong for him to stop. She is setting the standard and the others will follow.

The Kent's have slowed down due to recent illnesses.

Once you say someone is 'too old' at xxxx age then that sets the standard for everyone - so if the Duchess of Gloucester is forced to retire due to age then everyone over her age has to retire (The Queen, The Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra and the Duke of Gloucester) and those approaching her age know when they have to retire (Camilla in one more year, Charles in two, Anne in four, Andrew in 15, Edward in 19, Sophie in 20, etc).

People should be allowed to work as long as they like and until whatever age they like. As long as they are able to do the job and want to do it, they should be allowed to do it.

I work with two teachers still working 2 days a week in Primary schools both in their 80s. When someone suggested they retire 10 years ago they both laughed - 'why ... we enjoy the job and we are able to do it ...' and do it they do. They are two of the best teachers we have and are still helping the younger teachers, those in their 60s, 50s, 40s and even 30s and 20s, on how to do the job.

The the Kent's and Gloucester's won't be replaced by the York's, or in time Harry's children or Charlotte's and the new baby's is the way to make the family smaller (monarch, monarch's children, monarch's heir apparent's children and spouses only will be more than enough - even leaving out the spouses in most cases)
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 01-03-2018, 07:03 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
I wouldn't ask them.to retire based on age, but based purely on the fact that they are much further away from the throne now, plus there is a new generation of royals to take their place. I think any more than, say, ten working royals is more than required.
10 working royals in the line of succession means Anne goes:

The Queen
Charles
Camilla
William
Kate
Harry
Meghan
Andrew
Edward
Sophie

Can we all be flies on the wall when you tell her she is surplus to requirements?
Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 01-03-2018, 08:11 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,958
I would love to see that!
Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 01-03-2018, 08:26 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
I seem to be in the minority when I say I think there are too many royals doing full time engagements. Noone complained when Philip or the Duchess of Kent retired. Likewise, I can't see a problem with the remaining cousins of the Queen from retiring too. This would have the advantages of fewer working royals therefore saving HM some expense, and also freeing up patronages and engagement opportunities for the young royals, who all have significant capacity for doing considerably more.
Because Prince Philip retired because he decided it was time for him to retire. No one told him he had to. The Duchess of Kent withdrew from public life by her choice many years ago, mostly because of some health issues. That is why no one has issues with their retirements.

Forcing any of the others to retire after a lifetime of dedicated service would be disgraceful.
Reply With Quote
  #346  
Old 01-03-2018, 08:35 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 14,456
I don’t think anyone will “force” the Gloucester’s and Kent’s to retire. I do think they will bow out gracefully by their own choice at some point.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old 01-03-2018, 08:36 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 456
I have acknowledged that I realise I'm in a minority wanting a smaller working royal family.

Secondly, my idea of 'retiring' minor royals such as the Kents and Gloucesters is NOT based on age. They all considerably younger than the monarch!
Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old 01-03-2018, 08:56 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,958
I think there is a difference between wanting a smaller RF and suggesting more "minor royals" are retired off.

I would like to see a somewhat smaller RF in time but only as the RF shrinks over time. In a few years the RF will be pretty small anyway, in the current circumstances the only ones likely to pass down HRH are William and Harry (and even that is considered by some only a possibility). The Kent and Gloucester families won't, Anne won't, Edward won't (bit of ambiguity but I doubt now they will claim HRH for Louise and James), Beatrice and Eugenie won't, Zara and Peter won't.

TBH the question will then be will there be enough Royals to keep up with the work, certainly there won't be enough to keep up the current number of engagements.

But I don't want any of the current royals to be told they aren't wanted and to go off to their houses in the country and do nothing (which let's face it is what "retirement" means)
Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old 01-03-2018, 08:58 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 14,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
I have acknowledged that I realise I'm in a minority wanting a smaller working royal family.

Secondly, my idea of 'retiring' minor royals such as the Kents and Gloucesters is NOT based on age. They all considerably younger than the monarch!
I’m in that group of wanting a small working monarchy too. I think Tne Prince of Wales want this as well. I don’t think Charles would force the minor royals out of the working Firm. I think they would just gracefully bow out on their own.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old 01-03-2018, 09:17 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,841
Can anyone point to an actual statement by Charles (or anyone else for that matter) saying they want a 'smaller royal family'. I don't want a link to a press report but to an actual statement made by Charles or someone else.

I know the origin of the story was in 1992 when the suggestion was made at an early meeting of the now defunct 'Way Ahead' group and some minor palace employee made such a statement but I am looking for a quote directly from an actual royal.

There is no reason to assume that 6 - 8 royals couldn't do the number of engagements currently being done anyway. 4000 divided by 8 equals 500 - and Charles and Anne manage that every year. Philip used to manage 800 in his 40s and 50s so there is no reason why William and Harry couldn't be doing that many and they are almost half-way to the 4000.

The big problem is that there is a 30 year gap between William and his heir so there is an entire generation with no royals to relate to - those in their teens and twenties now have no royal in their generation and as they grow older the interest in the royals will miss that generation completely. With the desire of William and Harry to do less than previous generations and thus be seen less their relevance also declines.

The Queen said it best 'I have to be seen to be believed' and that still means seen to be doing real things not having staff issue a statement via some other medium.
Reply With Quote
  #351  
Old 01-03-2018, 09:21 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,316
Always an interesting debate.

Let's start with "full time royal" - such a thing does not exist except HMQ (cos that's 24/7)

I do not believe that HMQ or Prince Charles will force any royal to retire - it will be personal choice.

The younger royals have never said that they are full-time. The press may have used that term but KP never have.

Although I thought Harry should not have said anything about "modernising the monarchy" it is going to evolve into a smaller unit

Military establishments will continue to have their own royal honorary Head

Re charities and patronages, my thought is that it isn't going to be about individual charities , but more "theme" based.

Catherine on children and the Arts
William on 1st responders and conservation
Harry on veterans
Edward on DoE Award
Sophie leading on sight issues
Andrew on IT and young entrepreneurs

these examples might not be how it pans out but that's just to give an idea. Not cast in stone and, please, not something to argue over.

In addition major charities will have individual royal patrons but not the hundreds as currently (thinking of RA of Arts, of Drama, of Royal Society etc.) I've been reviewing those and some have come naturally to a close (or will do soon) or could be brought under a royal "umbrella"

The UK is awash with charities - and they overlap to a large degree. Money is getting wasted on overheads - that is something else that this approach could quietly address.

It really will change and I think that in age range Harry-Andrew will achieve it. Charles and William will drive it.

Anne will carry on till she drops but she will ensure that the ones she cares about will get support.

(wrote this before I saw ILuvBerties post)
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #352  
Old 01-03-2018, 10:45 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Can anyone point to an actual statement by Charles (or anyone else for that matter) saying they want a 'smaller royal family'. I don't want a link to a press report but to an actual statement made by Charles or someone else.

I know the origin of the story was in 1992 when the suggestion was made at an early meeting of the now defunct 'Way Ahead' group and some minor palace employee made such a statement but I am looking for a quote directly from an actual royal.
I would also be interested in reading this. Many people keep referring to this "smaller royal family" idea as absolute fact but did anyone in the family actually ever speak of this?
And really the current largish working family is a testament to the longevity and dedication of those cousins that stepped up to help the young Queen years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #353  
Old 01-03-2018, 11:23 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 12,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Because Prince Philip retired because he decided it was time for him to retire. No one told him he had to. The Duchess of Kent withdrew from public life by her choice many years ago, mostly because of some health issues. That is why no one has issues with their retirements.

Forcing any of the others to retire after a lifetime of dedicated service would be disgraceful.
What I find amusing about Philip is that when the announcement was made that he was retiring from public duties, everyone figured the man was going to ride off into the sunset and never be seen doing engagements ever again. What it boiled down to is that his daily planner no longer was being filled with duties and engagements on a daily basis and if Philip wanted to spend the rest of his days by the fire at Wood Farm, he could. The man has been cherry picking things he really wants to do and still does them. At his own pace.

The man is going to be 97 in June and he may not have a full daily planner but he is, by no means, inactive.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #354  
Old 01-04-2018, 02:29 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,841
Exactly.

The Duchess of Kent is still active as well - just not doing royal duties anymore but works with music and some charities there. She is still the patron of a number of charities either solo or in conjunction with her husband.
Reply With Quote
  #355  
Old 01-04-2018, 02:46 AM
JR76's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 1,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Exactly.

The Duchess of Kent is still active as well - just not doing royal duties anymore but works with music and some charities there. She is still the patron of a number of charities either solo or in conjunction with her husband.
Has she given up teaching?
Reply With Quote
  #356  
Old 01-04-2018, 03:26 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,841
I am not sure. I suspect she may still have some private pupils.
Reply With Quote
  #357  
Old 01-04-2018, 06:01 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,841
Weekly Update to 31st December 2017

There were two engagements between the 21st and 31st December. These figures are just those updated and do not include any other figures.

HRH The Prince of Wales – 534 (15.0%)
HRH Prince Henry of Wales – 176 (5.0%)

Year to Date Total – 3553

Comparison with last year – 3942-3551=389 fewer this year in comparison to last year.

Number of Days on which a royal undertook Official Engagements to 31st December, 2017

HRH The Prince of Wales – 174
HRH Prince Henry of Wales – 98


Adjustments to the Full Analysis of HRH The Prince of Wales

Total Count - 534
Days on Which Official Engagements were Undertaken – 174

Types of Engagements Undertaken:

Visit – 157


Adjustments to the Full Analysis HRH Prince Henry of Wales

Total Count – 176
Days on Which Official Engagements were Undertaken – 98

Types of Engagements Undertaken:

Guest Edited – 1
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


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
British Royal Family Engagements 2016 Iluvbertie British Royals 360 01-01-2017 04:18 AM
British Royal Family Engagements 2014 Iluvbertie British Royals 332 01-22-2015 06:32 AM
Calendar of Official Engagements for the Norwegian Royal Family: AUG 2005- DEC 2008 Larzen Current Events Archive 51 12-14-2008 05:04 AM




Popular Tags
baltic republics biography british royal family camilla canada caracciolo ceremony clothes current events dailyfail danish royal family duchessofsussex duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of edinburgh duke of york earl of snowdon england family fashion helena her children history hohenzollern infanta cristina interests juan carlos kate middleton king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander lineage lord snowdon meghan markle norwegian royal family patron porphyria prince aymeric prince charles prince charles; biographies; tom bower prince harry prince harry of wales prince nicholas princess princess alexia princess beatrice princesses princess eugenie princess of belgium public image queen letizia queen mathilde relationship royal royal ancestry royal geneology royal wedding smith spain state visit sweden tiara van belgië visit to spain wedding wedding of prince harry windsor windsor castle wivies ww1



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:50 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises