The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 07-12-2011, 01:59 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,500
Court Circular - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Court Circular July 9th, 2011:
Court Circular: July 9 - Times Online
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-20-2011, 03:36 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tulln, Austria
Posts: 4
I'm not sure whether my question really fits into this threat:
Is it theoretically possible that non-HRHs perform official duties on behalf of the Queen?
I suppose, most young royals try to avoid carrying out public duties regularly if they can. However, it may be necessary in the near future, as p.e. the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra are in their 70s and the Duke of Gloucester is in his 60s. They have sat on commissions and boards, have been trustees/chairmen/patrons of many organizations and charities and have represented the Queen abroad on numerous occasions. Who will fill these vacancies when these three working Royals decease (which can be the case in the next decade)? William and Harry have their own charities and organizations and will have to be prepared for greater role within the family. But these so-called minor royals? I'm afraid their positions would remain unfilled if their children (p.e. Earl of St. Andrews, Earl of Ulster) didn't take over their duties.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-20-2011, 08:04 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomeFriedrich7A View Post
I'm not sure whether my question really fits into this threat:
Is it theoretically possible that non-HRHs perform official duties on behalf of the Queen?
I suppose, most young royals try to avoid carrying out public duties regularly if they can. However, it may be necessary in the near future, as p.e. the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra are in their 70s and the Duke of Gloucester is in his 60s. They have sat on commissions and boards, have been trustees/chairmen/patrons of many organizations and charities and have represented the Queen abroad on numerous occasions. Who will fill these vacancies when these three working Royals decease (which can be the case in the next decade)? William and Harry have their own charities and organizations and will have to be prepared for greater role within the family. But these so-called minor royals? I'm afraid their positions would remain unfilled if their children (p.e. Earl of St. Andrews, Earl of Ulster) didn't take over their duties.

The obvious ones would have been Beatrice and Eugenie but the reports are that they have been told to get real jobs and that they aren't going to be needed to do royal duties.

That means, to me, that these organisations that have had royal patronage in the past will have to look elsewhere as the younger royals either have their own interests or have been told - 'you are not wanted/needed as part of the family's working life'.

As people like the Earl of St Andrews and Earl of Ulster actually have to work for a living as they aren't so wealthy that they can afford not to have a real job they also don't really have the time to devote to organisations that take up hours of their time.

I think in the future that working royals will have to do more - e.g. Kate will have to start stepping up to 500+ engagements a year within the next couple of years as will William and even Harry might have to leave the military to take up royal duties full time in support of his father and brother when they are monarchs.

Even Anne is now 60 so within 20 years will be slowing down and Andrew is so discredited that the 500+ engagement he has been doing will have to be done by others - but who is there?

Sorry for the organisations but they will need to look to non-royals to fill these roles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-21-2011, 08:32 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tulln, Austria
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
As people like the Earl of St Andrews and Earl of Ulster actually have to work for a living as they aren't so wealthy that they can afford not to have a real job they also don't really have the time to devote to organisations that take up hours of their time.
Honestly, I don't really regard this as a major problem, because a.f.a.i.k. Earl of St. Andrews and Lord Nicholas Windsor have both dedicated their professional lives to charitable work and don't work for their living on "ordinary" jobs. (Earl of St. Andrews is already patron of a dozen organizations or so, and Lord Nicholas Windsor is the unofficial Catholic representative of the Royal Family) Furthermore, they could either be offered accommodation in return for doing royal engagements (Kensington Palace?) or only carry them out part-time (like Prince Michael of Kent, who never appears in the Court Circular as his many public duties are not declared as "official" and has his own business consulting company in order to earn his living.) By the way, I'd find it a bit disappointing not seeing members of the Kent or Gloucester clans doing official engagements.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-21-2011, 08:47 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomeFriedrich7A View Post
Honestly, I don't really regard this as a major problem, because a.f.a.i.k. Earl of St. Andrews and Lord Nicholas Windsor have both dedicated their professional lives to charitable work and don't work for their living on "ordinary" jobs. (Earl of St. Andrews is already patron of a dozen organizations or so, and Lord Nicholas Windsor is the unofficial Catholic representative of the Royal Family) Furthermore, they could either be offered accommodation in return for doing royal engagements (Kensington Palace?) or only carry them out part-time (like Prince Michael of Kent, who never appears in the Court Circular as his many public duties are not declared as "official" and has his own business consulting company in order to earn his living.) By the way, I'd find it a bit disappointing not seeing members of the Kent or Gloucester clans doing official engagements.

The major sticking point is how are they going to support themselves? You can't expect Charles to continue to support such distant relations and they aren't that wealthy. Both the Kents and Gloucesters have had to sell stuff to get money in the past and to pay death duties - as unlike Charles their estates don't come free. Charles has indicated that he wants to reduce the size of the working family and doesn't even want his brothers' children doing royal duties so why would he want his mother's cousins children? They didn't even get invited to Zara's wedding afterall - they are too distant and in another generation will probably only appear at things like coronations and funerals. The government has also insisted that Michael pays a full rent for his apartment at KP of over 100,000 pounds a year. The Queen has been paying for the last decade or more but can you really expect Charles to pick up the bill for that for three or four families that are his mother's second cousins and thus his third cousins (I know some on here will argue that they are something like first cousins once removed but that isn't how I was taught by my English grandmother and I will stick with the English/Australian way of referring to cousins). He is loathe to pick up the bills for his own neices so why should he do it for such distant cousins?

Actually Prince Michael doesn't appear in the Court Circular on a regular basis because he doesn't so royal duties. When asked to represent the monarch he does appear - as does anyone else who represent the monarch. He asked and has been allowed to have a business that sees him do all sorts of things but he doesn't actually do royal duties.

I think we must realise that the Kents and Gloucesters are increasingly a long way from the throne and shouldn't expect them to be doing royal duties. The closest any of them are to the throne is 20th and over the next decade will drop further and further. Within 10 years the first of them will be closer to 30th. All that would take is two children each for William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Peter and Zara and voila - down to 31 - with the possible death of the Queen in that time up to 30th again and the Kents even further away with the Duke now at 28th. Remember when the Queen became Queen the present Duke of Kent was 8th in line. Over 60 years he has dropped 20 places and three of those ahead of him in 1952 have also already died so there are 23 new people between him and the throne. There simply isn't room for the descendents of these families anymore in the royal circles. They will join the descendents of George V's daughter as of interest only to royal watchers as their children have children but that is all.

Of George V's descendents - 5/9 grandchildren have done royal duties throughout their adult life.

Of George VI's descendents - 4/6 of his grandchildren have done so for most of their adult life with Edward trying something else first.

Of Elizabeth II's descendents it seems that 2/8 of her grandchildren will be expected to do so - William and Harry. It is to William and Harry that the future will lie and the descendents of past generations simply fade away as has happened throughout history.

Why would you expect the great-grandchildren of one monarch to do royal duties when the grandchildren of later monarchs - Lord Linley, Sarah Chatto, Peter Philips and Zara Tindell - aren't expected to do so and yet their relationship to a monarch is the same as the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester etc?

Even titled grandchildren of the present monarch aren't going to be doing royal duties and have been told to get a job to support themselves.

It is clear that the size of the working royal family is being reduced and frankly if you were to have a royal do something surely it would be better to have HRH Princess Beatrice of York over The Earl of Ulster who will in time be His Grace The Duke of Gloucester - no royal title for him.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-22-2011, 06:46 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Tulln, Austria
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The major sticking point is how are they going to support themselves? You can't expect Charles to continue to support such distant relations and they aren't that wealthy. Both the Kents and Gloucesters have had to sell stuff to get money in the past and to pay death duties - as unlike Charles their estates don't come free. Charles has indicated that he wants to reduce the size of the working family and doesn't even want his brothers' children doing royal duties so why would he want his mother's cousins children?
They aren't so wealthy - that's why I've proposed to give accommodation to them in return to do public engagements. And well, mother's cousin's child is not so distant, especially in this family. (My family's not royal, not even noble for the last 100 years, but even I have a good and relatively close relationship to my father's cousin's children. Furthermore, Lord Nicholas is Charles' godson and Lord Downpatrick was Lady Di's...) And don't forget: He doesn't give them privileges because he likes them so much but because he can delegate some of his duties to them (work <-> low rent/...?), I believe that's fair.
As to "he doesn't even want his brothers' children doing royal duties": I don't agree with that. Anne and Edward have disqualified their children for royal duties by not giving them the titles they were entitled to have. And as to Eugenie and Beatrice: In the past, female members of the Royal Family have never been required to do royal duties - it's always the eldest sons that are expected to do so (which would again hint at Earls of St Andrews and Ulster) . (Well-known exception here: Princess Alexandra who was asked by the Queen to do engagements as there was a lack of female members in the 60s.) Consequently, I don't believe that Charles had any influence whatsoever on the fact that most probably no offsprings of his siblings are going to be working members.


"Actually Prince Michael doesn't appear in the Court Circular on a regular basis because he doesn't so royal duties. When asked to represent the monarch he does appear - as does anyone else who represent the monarch. He asked and has been allowed to have a business that sees him do all sorts of things but he doesn't actually do royal duties."

Well, he's leading British delegations travelling abroad (esp. Eastern European countries), visiting schools, hospitals in the UK and abroad, welcoming foreign representatives on the Queen's behalf, visiting troops as colonel-in-chief of various bataillions, chairing dozens of commissions, organizations, attending state banquets ... I believe that comes close to doing royal duties, although, not "officially".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Why would you expect the great-grandchildren of one monarch to do royal duties when the grandchildren of later monarchs - Lord Linley, Sarah Chatto, Peter Philips and Zara Tindell - aren't expected to do so and yet their relationship to a monarch is the same as the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester etc?
Well, there is one significant difference between those you listed and p.e. Earl of St. Andrews, Earl of Ulster: the latter still have the surname Windsor and are male-line members of the Royal Family. Women (Princess Margaret, Princess Anne) cannot pass down any (royal) titles, so their children are excluded from public life anyway, although they may be genetically closer to the thrown. (But that doesn't count; if it counted, you wouldn't have Number 28, the Duke of Kent, still be an active royal representative.) Furthermore, Earl of St Andrews and Earl of Ulster, when succeeding, will continue to be at least Dukes of Blood Royal (as the Dukedoms are still passed down in the House of Windsor, the reigning house of the Commonwealth Realms), although not styled HRH. They will still take precedence before all other Dukes and certain Officers of State. So, although not having a special style distinguishing them from ordinary Dukes, they still keep royal privileges in official life. It is the title that involves carrying out official duties for the Crown, not the genetical relationship to the monarch (all working members of the royal family except the Princess Royal and The Earl of Wessex are Dukes.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
It is clear that the size of the working royal family is being reduced and frankly if you were to have a royal do something surely it would be better to have HRH Princess Beatrice of York over The Earl of Ulster who will in time be His Grace The Duke of Gloucester - no royal title for him.
I agree, an HRH as patron does have more prestige, no doubt. However, before having Mayor John Smith as a patron, organization X will prefer having His Grace, George Windsor, The Duke of Kent, Earl of St. Andrews, Baron Downpatrick. The Dukedom of Kent has always meant representing the monarch and I'd be really surprised if it wouldn't in the future. However, of course, my idea depends on the respective people being willing to take on royal duties, which is not self-evident. (may there be financial problems or something else.)

Well, you may be right that Charles wants to reduce the size of the working royal family, but as I've mentioned before, having Earl of St Andrews/Ulster doing royal duties wouldn't mean more royals in public service, they would simply replace their deceased parents. By the way, Charles/Camilla, William/Catherine, Harry/X, Edward/Sophie, is not really much.
Furthermore, I don't think that Charles wants to risk monarchy's popularity by minimizing royal engagements. The more often people can watch royals visit their local hospital or something, the more likely they will support the monarchy. With so few royals on duty, they'd hardly be able to visit foreign countries, receiving ambassadors, honoring dignitaries, supporting troops, visiting a kindergarden, and so on. The minor royals have always served the more senior ones well, leaving to them all the important stuff, instead opening the new museum of Somewhere-behind-the-seven-hills in the Queen's name. Charles would be very dumb not using this big advantage...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-22-2011, 11:16 PM
Super Baroness's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Coast, United States
Posts: 99
In my opinion, instead of talking about non-royal great-grandchildren of former monarchs performing royal duties, I think it would make more sense to have the husbands of senior princesses have a more active role in the Firm. I know that Tim Laurence has accompanied the Princess Royal on royal engagements since their marriage in 1992 , but he doesn't do solo work (I don't know much about him, but I'm assuming he is still active in his military life..). It makes sense though, because he is not an HRH. Yet in contrast, the Countess of Wessex has been a member of the family since 1999 and has since become a working royal. Of course, it goes back what gender can pass on their HRH and effectively bring in a new (royal) member of the family. Imagine if Harry was female...during the reigns of Charles/William there would be very few working royals.

I know it's a long shot, I just think that for the future and with scaling down of the Royal family, all spouses of the Monarch's children should have high-profile "royal" roles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-23-2011, 04:14 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,105
Well when the Queen passes, William, Catherine, Harry & wife - will be the Monarch's children and their spouses and they will all have a high profile role in the royal family.

As to Tim's military career in 2009 he was made Head of Profession for the British Government's Property Asset Management community. I don't know if he still holds this role but I don't think it takes up that much of his time.

Tim's 56 now, I doubt Charles is going to be King for another 10-20 years leaving Tim age 76 - making him a full time working royal at the age of 76 seems unwise.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
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
Crown Princess Victoria's Household/Court Marengo Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Daniel and Family 34 06-09-2014 09:54 AM
Hampton Court Palace Warren British Royal Residences 43 05-16-2014 06:38 PM
Princessehof (Princess' Court), Leeuwarden Marengo Dutch Royal Residences 2 11-16-2008 12:41 PM
The Court of King Albert II Marengo King Albert II and Queen Paola 0 11-17-2007 07:18 PM
Hampton Court Palace Nicki8100 Member Introductions and Updates 3 06-29-2007 10:38 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 crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman palace pom pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:49 AM.

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]