The Future of the British Monarchy

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

There is Camilla, there is Anne, there is Sophie, there is Catherine, there is Meghan... And in the future we will have George's wife, Louis' wife, Charlotte, Archie's wife. Plenty of ladies around, I would say.

Since we are in a era of alleged gender equality , why couldn't Charlotte's husband be a full-time royal too ?


I find it curious that wives of senior princes are expected to give up their careers and become full-time royals, but if the husband of a senior princess did the same, he would probably be frowned upon and accused of being a free loader living on taxpayer's money.


The only exception still seems to be the consorts of reigning queens or of the heiress to the Crown. I don't see, however, why Charlotte's spouse should be treated any differently than Louis's, especially considering that, as mentioned above, under equal primogeniture Charlotte will always be more senior than her baby brother.

[Mey]

Originally Posted by muriel

Interesting thought.

> The monarchy reshapes ever so often, and I am sure it is a considered decision on the part of Charles and possibly, William, to not involve the York girls in The Firm on an ongoing basis.

> Charles' generation has Camilla, Anne, Sophie, and then there are Catherine and Meghan in the next generation. IMO, you will increasingly see Camilla and Catherine take the "senior" royal lady roles, whilst Anne, Sophie and Meghan will take supporting roles, quite like the Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Alexander currently do.

> Do we need to, in your estimation, always have a certain minimum number of royal ladies, and more specifically blood princesses, on the job?

I'm thinking about the workload. The next generation of wives are decades away, if the 2 Princes marry women at all. That isn't a guarantee. It won't be the big tentpole projects that will suffer but the smaller personal appearances that the minor Royals do.

I also think its important that the blood princesses take up a role. They are actual Princesses and members of the family rather than having married in. They can't divorce the family!

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Since we are in a era of alleged gender equality , why couldn't Charlotte's husband be a full-time royal too ?
The only exception still seems to be the consorts of reigning queens or of the heiress to the Crown.

Although, because of the engagement was broken, we never saw it played out in practice there seems to have been plans for Jonas Bergström to support Princess Madeleine of Sweden in her official work and take on public duties for himself. At the time of the engagement it was declared that he'd take on his wife's title of Duke of Hälsingland and Gästrikland. This would not have been possible had there not been an intention of him becoming part of the Royal family and doing representative work.
Had this happened, it would, to my knowledge, have been the first case of a husband of a European princess, who's not an heir, to become a part of a Royal family in the way it's traditionally done for the wife of a prince.

[Tatiana Maria]

While not the norm, there exist some precedents for the husband of a European princess taking on official duties for the monarchy, even full time in the case of Pieter van Vollenhoven, husband of Princess Margriet of the Netherlands. The former dukes of Lugo and Palma de Mallorca and Prince Lorenz of Belgium are recent examples of husbands who continued their careers but found the time for part-time representative work.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I find it curious that wives of senior princes are expected to give up their careers and become full-time royals, but if the husband of a senior princess did the same, he would probably be frowned upon and accused of being a free loader living on taxpayer's money.


The only exception still seems to be the consorts of reigning queens or of the heiress to the Crown. I don't see, however, why Charlotte's spouse should be treated any differently than Louis's, especially considering that, as mentioned above, under equal primogeniture Charlotte will always be more senior than her baby brother.

I completely agree. Given that European royal princesses are no longer dispatched overseas to be wed to foreign princes, the British royal family's firm belief in the patrilineal system is inconsistent with the reality of their situation.

[Hallo girl]

On another thread a comment was made re lesser know royals. examples given as Anne and the Wessex family, I would like to disagree but put my post here because I will be told to move it from the Sussex thread anyway although that is where it started. Anyway here is my twopennyworth. It is not that these are lesser known royals but it does come down to age and generation. People of my generation grew up with Anne and Charles, they hit the headlines in their youth. We know lots about her and her work.

I agree younger people see them as old and not very well known, but that is not a fair comment. Anne in particular has worked tirelessly for this country.

There is a touch of ageism coming into this forum, similar comments were made regarding the Sussex family not wanting to move in to an apartment that had been lived in by ' old people'. (Gloucester family)

The older royal generation were not born old, they hogged the headlines in their day, and in the case of the Gloucesters, they gave up a private life to support the royal family after his older brother died in an accident.

There was a really interesting documentary on TV looking at the children of George v, how after the first world war he encouraged his 4 sons to go out on visits tours etc to re brand the royal family. This is still going on, the younger royals are going out to engage with the younger generation, to keep the royal family relevant in the modern day. That is the role the sussex and cambridge families are fulfilling. People who think Meghan and Harrys way is fantastic might find the others old and boring whereas others find the way they work as not so good. It is called opinion.
Anyway I hope this is in the correct thread.

[Ista]

These are all very good observations. I have no doubt that at some point the Sussexes and Cambridges will be seen as old, out of touch, and boring, too, and that's on the positive side.

[AdmirerUS]

I was just thinking that it seems the heir and the heir's heir often start to go less-loved by the public in their 30s. Waiting around is not a good look for anyone in the public eye. And the BRF is doubly cursed by having to be non-political as they wait. People just don't look like they are earning their keep if all they do is walk around, smile, pull back curtains and drink the odd pint or launch the odd boat.

[MARG]

I think Charles has more than done his bit. There is no job description for The Prince of Wales and he could have just played polo and lived a somewhat eccentric rich man's life. Cutting the odd ribbon.

You really need to read widely discover the depth and scope of the Prince's Trust not to mention organic farming, sustainable farming, kworking to reinvigorate the Wool trade, healthy housing, enough housing, unemployment, reinvigorating skills based teaching so that artisans trained and qualified are working on historical restoration not just in the UK but around the world. I could write a tome about his work but there is already a library.

And he also paints rather well . . . .

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Ista

These are all very good observations. I have no doubt that at some point the Sussexes and Cambridges will be seen as old, out of touch, and boring, too, and that's on the positive side.

I agree. Eventually the kids will be in their teens/20s and the attention will be squarely on them. That is not to say their parents will suddenly stop making headlines as well. This social media 24 hour new cycle world has changed a lot. And who knows how things will look in 10 to 20 years from now.

I do feel that major shifts will happen once HMQ is no longer with us and it is hard to even know how the monarchy will be shaped by it. I know a lot of the "older" generation who have little use for the likes of the Cambridges and Sussexes and only truly respect The Queen. Once she is gone, so is their interest.

So they do need to make sure that Generation Z is invested too.

[Ista]

Originally Posted by ACO

I agree. Eventually the kids will be in their teens/20s and the attention will be squarely on them. That is not to say their parents will suddenly stop making headlines as well. This social media 24 hour new cycle world has changed a lot. And who knows how things will look in 10 to 20 years from now.

I do feel that major shifts will happen once HMQ is no longer with us and it is hard to even know how the monarchy will be shaped by it. I know a lot of the "older" generation who have little use for the likes of the Cambridges and Sussexes and only truly respect The Queen. Once she is gone, so is their interest.

So they do need to make sure that Generation Z is invested too.

This is such a good point. I also anticipate major changes in the way the BRF is talked about, covered, and accepted when the Queen dies, and at this point, it's impossible to predict how it will all play out. My best guess is that Charles may be in for a bit of a rough ride, at least in the beginning. It also is imperative that the rest of the royal family, especially the Cambridges and Sussexes, present a unified, cohesive front when that happens.

[ACO]

I agree 100%

The family can’t be seen divided in any capacity. That is the time more than ever to appear solid. There is a lot of respect for HMQ which I do feel extends to the BRF as a whole but likely will disappear once she is gone. So Charles and his immediate family will truly have to step it up.

It will without a doubt be a trying time for the monarchy.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Ista

This is such a good point. I also anticipate major changes in the way the BRF is talked about, covered, and accepted when the Queen dies, and at this point, it's impossible to predict how it will all play out. My best guess is that Charles may be in for a bit of a rough ride, at least in the beginning. It also is imperative that the rest of the royal family, especially the Cambridges and Sussexes, present a unified, cohesive front when that happens.

These are good points, there is a great deal of respect for HM, but I do believe the handover could be difficult in lots of ways. It will be interesting times, but hopefully a long way off.

[muriel]

An interesting piece in The Spectator.


https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/...-the-monarchy/

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by muriel

An interesting piece in The Spectator.


https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/...-the-monarchy/

All so old and old and by a Daily Mail writer... Who, like her collegues, surely walked to her holiday camp in Epping Forrest this year.

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by muriel

An interesting piece in The Spectator.


https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/...-the-monarchy/

Did we really pay £5000 for the Sussex's to have a copper bath? Where was that information?

[Curryong]

I read it at the time and Harry and Meghan paid for those bathroom fittings.

[ACO]

No. During all that 2.4M drama they made it clear they paid for their interior.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by muriel

An interesting piece in The Spectator.


https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/08/...-the-monarchy/

Interesting that Zara has been lumped in with Andrew and Harry/Meghan for criticism. Usually she is exempt.

[Zaira]

The media's attempts to paint the private jets with the truly troubling and sickening accusations (credible ones IMO) against Andrew is an absolute insult. I am honestly aghast at their behavior.

If the monarchy is in trouble, it has nothing to do with Harry, Meghan or the young generation. Its HM's children who have time and time again damaged the institution. The fact that many continue to be angered by Meghan's mere existence says a lot about them, not about Meghan or Harry.

What is more those SAME polls she cites for the Queen's popularity literally have Harry just behind her.

[Ista]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

Interesting that Zara has been lumped in with Andrew and Harry/Meghan for criticism. Usually she is exempt.

I found that interesting as well, and it makes me suspect that in this current climate, all the royals are going to be having their finances and contacts under the microscope for a while. This could be fascinating in a horrible, train-wreck kind of way.