Could the princes' future wives continue working?

[Roslyn]

I am of the impression that Henry wants a wife, not a live in companion. A wife who will accompany him on royal duties I am sure. And he wants to have children. At least that is what his interviews have lead me to believe.

Not so sure if Chelsy would be content with that. Clearly full time law is no longer her passion. What is? No interviews, no idea.

It may be that she is ready to be a Mum and she feels that and royal duties will be plenty for quite some time.

I don't understand the distinction you are drawing between wife and live-in companion. "Royal duties" is just a job. Most people's spouses don't tag along with them when they do their jobs, and many couples have different and time-consuming careers yet are very much couple and raise children together.

I don't know what Chelsy's current career plans are, but the skills she has acquired in the study and practise of law will have equipped her for lots of different occupations. She may well have her sights set on a role with some sort of humanitarian foundation. Even if she doesn't have an independent career, as Harry's spouse she might do the sort of stuff Queen Rania does. Rania has proven that the spouse of a Royal - even a Queen consort - can involve herself heavily and seriously in work which is far more significant than just cutting ribbons and turning up looking pretty and smiling for photo ops at fancy dinners on her husband's arm.

 

[AfricanAUSSIE]

I don't understand the distinction you are drawing between wife and live-in companion. "Royal duties" is just a job. Most people's spouses don't tag along with them when they do their jobs, and many couples have different and time-consuming careers yet are very much couple and raise children together.

I don't know what Chelsy's current career plans are, but the skills she has acquired in the study and practise of law will have equipped her for lots of different occupations. She may well have her sights set on a role with some sort of humanitarian foundation. Even if she doesn't have an independent career, as Harry's spouse she might do the sort of stuff Queen Rania does. Rania has proven that the spouse of a Royal - even a Queen consort - can involve herself heavily and seriously in work which is far more significant than just cutting ribbons and turning up looking pretty and smiling for photo ops at fancy dinners on her husband's arm.

I am making no distinction, but we are talking about the English RF right?

 

[Curryong]

Chelsy reputedly is planning a line of South African inspired jewellery to be released in the next few months.

There are certain disadvantages to wives working in the BRF. For instance, a (married-in) barrister might have clients clamouring for her to fight their cases, causing jealousy within the law firm. Conversely, if she lost several high-profile cases, there would be headlines in the press. What if she became involved in a controversial case, involving government policy (human rights, migration, for example?)

For better or for worse, people do treat individuals who are princes and princesses differently. If there is a promotion for this wife in a private firm might there not be mutterings from colleagues about favouritism? Same if the royal worked in a firm that dealt with a government department. Too near to government?

What if the wife was given a position because the boss wanted to curry favour, same as with products pressed on members of the royal family now. What if the royal family bought cars, equipment from this firm. The media may very well infer unfair competition. So might business rivals!

The British tabloids are rabid especially about the wife of a popular young royal. What if they planted spies in the firm (supposed temporary workers) to watch this person for anything inappropriate? How would fellow workers like paps, press hanging around outside when they are arriving for work?

What about security? Are these people to have no RPO's, leaving them open to being harassed or to terrorist or kidnapping threats? If they are to have RPOs how many, and would that interfere with the running of the firm, business meetings, etc? Some fellow workers might feel uncomfortable with police and security looming around during business hours.

There is a reason why women married into the BRF don't work, and these are only a few of the reasons.

 

[Roslyn]

I am making no distinction, but we are talking about the English RF right?

Gotcha!

 

[Roslyn]

There are certain disadvantages to wives working in the BRF. For instance, a (married-in) barrister might have clients clamouring for her to fight their cases, causing jealousy within the law firm. Conversely, if she lost several high-profile cases, there would be headlines in the press. What if she became involved in a controversial case, involving government policy (human rights, migration, for example?)

(snip)

There is a reason why women married into the BRF don't work, and these are only a few of the reasons.

They have a divided profession in the UK. She could still be a solicitor in sole practice, not answerable to partners or an employer. Though I am not suggesting that it would be feasible for Harry's wife to remain in practise as a lawyer as she would be too close to the throne and there is a distinct possibility that she could be retained to do work that could be deemed too hot to handle for someone in her position, or take a turn that placed it into that category. What I said above was that I consider that her training as a lawyer would have equipped her with skills that would be of assistance to her in many useful and intellectually-challenging capacities, some of which would surely be acceptable, and I cited Rania as an example.

Though I do think that it's time that the role of the more junior members of the BRF be redefined and detached from the central characters so that the married-ins, be they wives or husbands, can continue to practise their professions or pursue their careers.

 

[Honeybees]

Does anyone remember what happened when The Duchess of Wessex continued working after marriage? She can be referred to as Princess Edward? Might that indicate some of the potential issues?

 

[Curryong]

Sophie Countess of Wessex was widely attacked for using her royal status to gain lucrative contracts for the firms she represented. Exactly one of the points in my above post.

Sophie did continue to work after her marriage but came undone in 2001 when the News of the World got a coup. 'A fake Sheikh' was placed by the newspaper in order to gain access to Sophie. They wanted to see whether she would offer any 'royal' inducements or influence to gain a contract with a person she thought was wealthy.

Instead, Sophie said a lot of things she shouldn't. She referred to the Queen as 'the old dear', criticised the Blairs and the repeal of the hunting legislation, praised Hague the Conservative leader at the time, and, all in all, made a terrible faux-pas..

Neither hers nor Edward's firms was going very well, (both firms were in debt), and shortly afterwards the couple retired to full time royal duties.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Does anyone remember what happened when The Duchess of Wessex continued working after marriage? She can be referred to as Princess Edward? Might that indicate some of the potential issues?

The Countess of Wessex (wife of an Earl is a Countess not a Duchess) continued to use her married name in her business activities after her marriage.

 

[MARG]

Countess, Duchess, Princess, call her what you will but the bottom line is that both Sophie and Edward were forced to end their "outside" endeavours amid accusations of favouritism such as, no one would use them in their jobs if they were not who they are . . . so . . .

Not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done. So, no job equals no possible influence peddling and there you have it politicians had nothing to moan about and have no compunction to use the BRF to further the good of the UK. Edward and Sophie lead quiet country private lives within the realm of the firm and only seen when acting for HM. European weddings etc.

Could Catherine hold down a job and be who she is. No! There are security considerations, and that is just the start.

Could Harry's future wife hold down job. We won't know until he's married.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I don't know what Chelsy's current career plans are, but the skills she has acquired in the study and practise of law will have equipped her for lots of different occupations. She may well have her sights set on a role with some sort of humanitarian foundation. Even if she doesn't have an independent career, as Harry's spouse she might do the sort of stuff Queen Rania does. Rania has proven that the spouse of a Royal - even a Queen consort - can involve herself heavily and seriously in work which is far more significant than just cutting ribbons and turning up looking pretty and smiling for photo ops at fancy dinners on her husband's arm.

This is what I meant by making the meet-and-greet routine more substantially rewarding (a la Charles).
If one twines within that surface activity real work then the meet-and-greets are more palpable when they occur. Chelsy has a substantial past of significant personal achievement. There is no reason she could not take those skills and use them to advantage, say in Charles' own Prince's Trust, perhaps overseeing the many business' themselves. The possibilities are numerous with her background and ability to grasp material presented to her.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In the Netherlands at maximum six persons receive an allowance of the State:
- the King and his spouse
- the future King and his spouse
- the former King and his spouse

All other members of the royal family have to provide in their own living. The exemption of these six is because the lawmaker thought it was "undesirable" that the present, the future or the former King and their spouses are "in a dependant situation to third parties". I think that is wise and I can follow this way of thinking.

Let us imagine the Dutch model on the British situation: this would mean that members of the British royal family can have a job indeed, outside these six (Elizabeth & Philip, Charles & Camilla, William & Catherine). And why not? Viscount Linley, Peter Phillips, Zara Phillips, they have led the way. And possibly Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie will follow suit. In essence the Duke of Cambridge is already a working royal so why can his future sister-in-law not have a career while married with Prince Harry?

 

[Curryong]

Why? Because, as I pointed out in my earlier post, a myriad problems would develop if a married-in royal worked for any commercial organisation in the UK, in the areas of royal patronage, security, press attention and a dozen other things. Sophie Wessex had her own business and was constantly being accused of using her royal position to gain lucrative contracts for her clients.

 

[Elenath]

The difference in the UK is that, while the Dutch press (nor anyone else) couldn’t care, the British press does and they will use everything and anything to their advantage.
It should be possible though but I’m afraid the climate within the UK will make it impossible. Or at least really hard.

 

[RCBadger]

Sophie Countess of Wessex was widely attacked for using her royal status to gain lucrative contracts for the firms she represented. Exactly one of the points in my above post.

Sophie did continue to work after her marriage but came undone in 2001 when the News of the World got a coup. 'A fake Sheikh' was placed by the newspaper in order to gain access to Sophie. They wanted to see whether she would offer any 'royal' inducements or influence to gain a contract with a person she thought was wealthy.

Instead, Sophie said a lot of things she shouldn't. She referred to the Queen as 'the old dear', criticised the Blairs and the repeal of the hunting legislation, praised Hague the Conservative leader at the time, and, all in all, made a terrible faux-pas..

Neither hers nor Edward's firms was going very well, (both firms were in debt), and shortly afterwards the couple retired to full time royal duties.

The "old dear" comment was about the Queen Mother, not the Queen.

 

[Curryong]

Thanks Badger. I couldn't remember whether it was the Queen or her mother. Sophie certainly said quite a few things she shouldn't have, though!

 

[Fürstin Taxis]

I agree with Elenath. It would be difficult for her to work without an intruding press and babbling colleagues. But Imo it also depends on the job. If she is an historian, it's less of a problem than her being an employee who has to work from 9to5.

 

[RCBadger]

Thanks Badger. I couldn't remember whether it was the Queen or her mother. Sophie certainly said quite a few things she shouldn't have, though!

You're welcome. The problem isn't what she said, it's that she said it at all. The British royals aren't supposed to comment on politics.

Getting back on topic, ITA that it would be very difficult for a potential wife of Harry's to carry on with a career.

 

[Mbruno]

The "old dear" comment was about the Queen Mother, not the Queen.

Besides, lots of people in the UK (at least the 35 % who consistently vote for the Tories in most general elections) would probably have criticized the Blairs and the fox hunting ban, or praised the Conservative leader in a private conversation. That is completely different from Sophie making the same comments in public in her official capacity as a member of the royal family.

British royals are not supposed to show public partisan preferences , but, like anybody else, they must certainly have personal party preferences in private and I wouldn't be at all surprised if most of them were Tories. Quite frankly, Sophie was framed by the paper in that particular episode and made no faux-pas at all.

 

[Roslyn]

The difference in the UK is that, while the Dutch press (nor anyone else) couldn’t care, the British press does and they will use everything and anything to their advantage.
It should be possible though but I’m afraid the climate within the UK will make it impossible. Or at least really hard.

Time for a change, then, instead of continuing to kowtow to the press and being frightened off by them. Time for non-core royals to throw down the gauntlet and get jobs and keep them and thumb their noses at the press. If one does it, then another, then another, it will become the norm. It won't be easy but that's not a reason to not do it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Eugenie seems to be making it work at the moment setting the stage in motion for those closer to the throne. If a born Princess can do it so can a married in bride.

 

[Roslyn]

Precisely!

 

[Queen Camilla]

Eugenie, Peter and Zara have managed to have careers without any more additional security risks than the average person faces.

The era of woman giving of their lives when they married ended with those born in the 1950s.

Those born in the 1960s or later are expected to work before, during and after marriage.

Marriage and children are no barrier for working a real job.

Cutting ribbons, wearing designer clothes and smiling at the camera is not a real job.

 

[RCBadger]

Anne's children are not royal. And I think once you get to the grandchildren of a monarch, it probably is easier for them to find separate careers away from royal duties. But for the children and their partners, it's still probably a no go.

 

[Roslyn]

Anne's children are not royal. And I think once you get to the grandchildren of a monarch, it probably is easier for them to find separate careers away from royal duties. But for the children and their partners, it's still probably a no go.

Anne's children aren't royal, only because of one artificial construct that discriminates against women and another one that dictates that if a person hasn't been given the style "His/Her Royal Highness" - which in itself is absurd when you really think about it - they are not "Royal". However these people are still the grandchildren of the reigning monarch, just as Harry is, and Beatrice and Eugenie and Louise and James are.

Why does the lack of "HRH" make Zara and Peter of less interest to those whose existence warrants the appointment of protection officers and other security measures to the Queen's grandchildren? Why are they able to have jobs and live relatively normal lives when their "Royal" cousins aren't? It defies logic, IMO, but is, nevertheless, fascinating for the psychological and sociological issues it raises.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I think requiring every spouse to sign onto being a full-time royal has to start changing. It's just not feasible imo. It potentially cost Harry at least one possible wife. There's got to be more flexibility. JMO. (If there is a right thread for this topic, let me know).

 

[Curryong]

I think it would be impossible myself, given the rampant nature of the British Press and their desire to get a story, plus security issues and a dozen other things.

 

[AdmirerUS]

I think requiring every spouse to sign onto being a full-time royal has to start changing. It's just not feasible imo. It potentially cost Harry at least one possible wife. There's got to be more flexibility. JMO. (If there is a right thread for this topic, let me know).

I have to agree. I often think that many of us have such strong opinions on the forums that we could never effectively serve as a royal or (especially) a royal spouse.

 

[MARG]

I think requiring every spouse to sign onto being a full-time royal has to start changing. It's just not feasible imo. It potentially cost Harry at least one possible wife. There's got to be more flexibility. JMO. (If there is a right thread for this topic, let me know).

I think it would be impossible myself, given the rampant nature of the British Press and their desire to get a story, plus security issues and a dozen other things.

It is not a requirement it is a reality. The media in UK chase the royals with vigour and, as Sophie and Edward discovered, having a job is a landmine.

They thought they had it covered by working for themselves but could never have imagined the lengths the media would go to to "get a story" even if they created the story themselves.

The media assault on any place of work employing a royal could be enough to bankrupt them as their core business becomes incidental to the "royal" on staff.

I know people will quote European royals working, but they have a tradition and a history, the UK does not and has not.

 

[Roslyn]

But is the fact that it hasn't worked well in the past be reason enough to capitulate to the press and stop trying? You only have traditions and history because someone has done it before. If no-one does it, nothing will change.

Sophie tried, but her model eventually didn't work. It is the "HRH" tag that seems to be the kiss of death to a career, unless it is in one of the services. Minor royals without the HRH have successfully had careers.

If an HRH married someone who chose not to use that tag, they could establish a precedent, and once you have a precedent you have the start of a tradition. Before I'm howled down by cries that in the UK a wife takes her husband's surname and style and titles, that's only tradition, not law. The UK already has the precedent of the wife of the Prince of Wales not using her primary title. What is really the difference between HRH the Princess of Wales being known as HRH the Duchess of Cornwall, and HRH Princess Henry continuing to be known by the name she had had since birth, e.g. Ms Jane Smith, or Ms Jane Windsor? Yes, in one example the "lower" title is one her husband holds anyway, but it is still being used by her by choice. The second example is a name Harry's wife would be perfectly entitled to choose use regardless of the fact there was another name she was also entitled to use by reason of her marriage. If she was determined to practise her profession, she could decided to not take the tag.

Elizabeth has been monarch for sixty years. That's a very long time. Once her reign is over, there might be more acceptance of things being done differently.

And, yes, this is quite off-topic.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I think it would be impossible myself, given the rampant nature of the British Press and their desire to get a story, plus security issues and a dozen other things.

But that's a societal choice. It could be undone.

I have to agree. I often think that many of us have such strong opinions on the forums that we could never effectively serve as a royal or (especially) a royal spouse.

Just so.

But is the fact that it hasn't worked well in the past be reason enough to capitulate to the press and stop trying? You only have traditions and history because someone has done it before. If no-one does it, nothing will change.

Exactly so.

Sophie tried, but her model eventually didn't work. It is the "HRH" tag that seems to be the kiss of death to a career, unless it is in one of the services. Minor royals without the HRH have successfully had careers.

So there is a precedent: Sophie (and Edward). Had there not been the scandal, it's possible they could have gone on. In fact, in the U.S. most press on after scandal and are okay professionally (depends on the severity of the scandal; sexual stuff generally is the kiss-of-death, but other stuff can be survived).

If an HRH married someone who chose not to use that tag, they could establish a precedent, and once you have a precedent you have the start of a tradition. Before I'm howled down by cries that in the UK a wife takes her husband's surname and style and titles, that's only tradition, not law. The UK already has the precedent of the wife of the Prince of Wales not using her primary title. What is really the difference between HRH the Princess of Wales being known as HRH the Duchess of Cornwall, and HRH Princess Henry continuing to be known by the name she had had since birth, e.g. Ms Jane Smith, or Ms Jane Windsor? Yes, in one example the "lower" title is one her husband holds anyway, but it is still being used by her by choice. The second example is a name Harry's wife would be perfectly entitled to choose use regardless of the fact there was another name she was also entitled to use by reason of her marriage. If she was determined to practise her profession, she could decided to not take the tag.

Agree with this summation 100%.

Elizabeth has been monarch for sixty years. That's a very long time. Once her reign is over, there might be more acceptance of things being done differently.

Yep.