The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Denville]

TThe Queen and her family would walk away with Balmoral & Sandringham, the artwork they privately own, the jewels they privately own, the Queen's private investments, the Queen's horses and the Queen's stamp collection (I think). HM would enjoy the life of a lady in the country, riding horses. AI do wonder how prepared the RF are for this ever happening, the Queen receives £12million+ from the Duchy of Lancaster that goes to her personally and is used to meet a lot of the costs of other royals etc but that still leave a fair amount going to her personally, could the RF cope even privately without this and just the income from Balmoral, Sandringham and private investments? Recently in the Norwegian RF threads it was said King Harald V's fortune was mainly held in trusts set up in case of an "emergency" to provide income independent of the State - maybe QE2 should think of something similar.

Im sure the RF have provision against the day when maybe they have to go...

 

[Winnie]

Im sure the RF have provision against the day when maybe they have to go...

Of course they do it is just not advertised as no one business.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The former Bavarian royal family stilk receives millions per year from the Bayerische Ausgleichfonds and have rights of use of (parts) of the former royal residences. In many states where the monarchy was ended, prudent arrangements were made. I have no doubt the same will happen in the UK in a similar case.

 

[tommy100]

Whilst I think the Queen definitely had built up some savings for such an event, remember when Charles and Diana divorced in 1996 it was widely reported the Queen had to give Charles the money for his divorce.
I wonder if somewhere, well hidden, there is a plan for what would happen if the monarchy was abolished.

 

[Axeyman]

Not sure if this is the right place to post this information.

For Australian people there is another royal special on tonight on ABC at 8.30pm. Entitled "Windsor Inc" the show Four Corners will look at the "sophisticated corporate campaign to future-proof the crown". The show charts how the royals have rebuilt their reputation and changed the way they managed "The Firm".

The new look royals are the result of "one of the most spectacular rebranding exercises in modern times"

Sounds fascinating.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Future of the BRF...I admit i look forward to Charles as king but its for personal reasons and because I feel he has been bullied and mistreated.

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that a number of posts relating to the topic of whether or not the Queen would/will/should abdicate have been moved to the http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...e-consider-abdication-or-retirement-8545.html thread.

 

[Kataryn]

The former Bavarian royal family stilk receives millions per year from the Bayerische Ausgleichfonds and have rights of use of (parts) of the former royal residences. In many states where the monarchy was ended, prudent arrangements were made. I have no doubt the same will happen in the UK in a similar case.

In case someone is interested, the Wittelsbacher-Ausgleichfonds at the moment pays 14 Mill. EUR each year to the family, according to the quality paper of Munich, Die Sueddeutsche (Zeitung).

Whilst I think the Queen definitely had built up some savings for such an event, remember when Charles and Diana divorced in 1996 it was widely reported the Queen had to give Charles the money for his divorce.
I wonder if somewhere, well hidden, there is a plan for what would happen if the monarchy was abolished.

According to the contract between souverain and parliament about The Crown Estate, the enormous riches of the Crown Estate plus den whole estate of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall revert back to the personal possession of the former souverain. It is the same like with any historic estate of a titled Briton: it becomes private property again. So getting rid of the monarchy would make the current souverain enormously rich in private while the taxpayer would have to pay for a new head of state from the state's money. A bad move!

 

[Dman]

More change coming to the British Monarchy in 2019-

https://twitter.com/x/status/1080430841099141122

 

[Pranter]

Well that's hardly breaking news....aren't we all kinda expecting that to happen as the Queen ages?


LaRae

 

[Dman]

Well that's hardly breaking news....aren't we all kinda expecting that to happen as the Queen ages?


LaRae

Yes! It’s just worth noting that more transitional changes are coming for the Windsor’s this year.

 

[Pranter]

It is interesting or will be interesting to see who takes over what charity.


LaRae

 

[WillVictoria]

Given the events celebrating the 50th anniversary of the PoW's investiture, one thing caught my, and other's, attention. Namely that Anne is slated to join Charles, Camilla, the Cambridges, and the Sussexes while Andrew and the Wessexes are not.

Now this could end up being the result of busy schedules, but otherwise, could the choice to include Anne and not her brothers mean that Andrew and the Wessexes are due for a reduced role under Charles? Obviously, they'll still be around, with Edward and Sophie focusing on the DoE awards and Andrew supporting his charities but could we see their visibility and presence decreased, specifically compared to Anne who would be in the same child-of-the-former-monarch role.

 

[tommy100]

I said in the other thread where this is being discussed that I personally think that the reasons Andrew and Edward are not yet known to be attending may simply be because of a diary conflict.

I can't imagine Anne would be given a greater role than Edward and Andrew for any particular reason. Yes if she wants to do more than her brothers Charles won't prevent her but I can't see him giving Anne a greater role - for what reason? There are plenty of royal ladies to take up duties - Camilla, Kate & Meghan - just any many as available men.

My point is, whatever we may think about Charles and his relationships with his siblings I think he is professional enough to treat them all as equal in work related matters. Surely people realise he can't just pick and choose which royals are part of his "stream lined" monarchy - he would have to apply the rules fairly - e.g. his wife an sons and their wives as working royals, or those and his siblings and their wives (assuming the situation with Tim stays that he isn't seen as a working royal), or all of those and the Queen's cousins. I can't imagine him picking and choosing those he gets on with against those he may not get on with as much or those who get good PR over those who don't. Anne gets good press now but didn't twenty odd years ago so if the media suddenly talk about Princess Sourpuss again will he drop her from his working royals?

I imagine it will either be all his siblings or none doing public duties.

 

[EllieCat]

I can't see him giving Anne a greater role - for what reason? There are plenty of royal ladies to take up duties - Camilla, Kate & Meghan - just any many as available men.

Let's not forget Anne is The Princess Royal.

I agree with I think Prince Charles will include his siblings equally when he is King.

I saw that TV programme last night, Prince, Son and Heir; really good. I think he'll make a very good king.

 

[Mbruno]

If I remember correctly the Crown "owned" or currently "owns' all the museums, castles and properties, but exchanged their direct control to the government. In exchange for these properties and the income they generate the Queen or King takes a purse for covering their family and upkeep.

Do you think the RF will simply hand over the goods and walk away if the populace rejects the monarchy? I wonder if the Royal Family continued to take the purse without the attendant "work" would that be acceptable? I bet they'd love to take off their shoes and kick back. I think that all the charities that underpin the British nation would continue on and they (the family) would still be around.

What do you think would happen?

The question of ownership is complex and maybe some lawyers here could enlighten us.

The British State actually doesn’t own the palaces or the artwork therein. They are placed in ( public ?) trusts that are held by the monarch for the nation. The Crown, Estate, which is separate from the Occupied Palaces Estate., is not owned by the government either, but is, however, used for commercial purposes and its revenue goes directly to the Treasury with a percentage of the surplus revenue used as the sovereign’s grant.

The status of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall is somewhat more complicated . Although they have same characteristics that would be typical of public bodies, they are normally considered private trusts.

The kind of settlement the RF would get in the event of the abolition of the monarchy would have a great impact on its personal finances. If the former Sovereign walked away with the Duchies and, even more so, with the Crown Estate, he would be a billionaire. But, even if the King kept only his undisputed private wealth (, Sandrigham, Balmoral, the personal jewel and stamp collections, etc.), he would still be a multimillionaire.

 

[Kataryn]

The question of ownership is complex and maybe some lawyers here could enlighten us.

Not so long ago I read a scholarly paper about that question and the authors agreed that if the monarchy ceases to exist, the government needs to divide the Royal assets between the "Body politic" of the wearer of the "Crown" and the "Body natural". "The body natural" of the Queen eg owns Sandringham and Balmoral, "The Body politic" holds the Crown Jewels and the Crown estate "in trust for the nation". But, as the Crown estate is based on the once private belongings of the souverain and there have been several Acts about it, which all agree that the souverain has a private interest in some of the assets, the consent was that the government would give a part of the Crown Estate to the Head of the Windsor family's "Body natural" and another part would fall to the State as the new "Body politic" of the souverain. The recommendation was that the Royal family would get about 25 % of the Crown Estate, while the new "State" would get 75% including eg Windsor Castle but probably not Buckingham Palace, because that was privately bought by George III. after the foundation of the Crown Estate was layed in 1760.

The same with the Crown Jewels which belong to the nation, but the Royal collection would be divided through a new law with the Windsor's getting their share eg all jewels that were meant as private gifts, but considered as gifts to the "Body political" of the members of the Royal family who were gifted with it.

I guess there would be a lot of hackling about who gets what, but in the end I guess the Windsors leave with the assets that can be privately possessed while the State takes those which costs a lot of money to uphold for the public's right to access.

It is agreed by government and the Royal family that the DUchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, though "Royal" duchies, are privately owned estates. The government controls the accounts since 1848, but only to make sure there is no mismanagement of that estate, as they are currently "in trust" for the next souverain and the next Duke of Cornwall. In case of the abolition of the monarchy, these estates would still belong to their current owners, but these could then do with them whatever they wanted.



So in the end, the Windsors would keep a lot of their possessions, but as privately owned and under no govermental control.

 

[Mbruno]

Not so long ago I read a scholarly paper about that question and the authors agreed that if the monarchy ceases to exist, the government needs to divide the Royal assets between the "Body politic" of the wearer of the "Crown" and the "Body natural". "The body natural" of the Queen eg owns Sandringham and Balmoral, "The Body politic" holds the Crown Jewels and the Crown estate "in trust for the nation". But, as the Crown estate is based on the once private belongings of the souverain and there have been several Acts about it, which all agree that the souverain has a private interest in some of the assets, the consent was that the government would give a part of the Crown Estate to the Head of the Windsor family's "Body natural" and another part would fall to the State as the new "Body politic" of the souverain. The recommendation was that the Royal family would get about 25 % of the Crown Estate, while the new "State" would get 75% including eg Windsor Castle but probably not Buckingham Palace, because that was privately bought by George III. after the foundation of the Crown Estate was layed in 1760.

The same with the Crown Jewels which belong to the nation, but the Royal collection would be divided through a new law with the Windsor's getting their share eg all jewels that were meant as private gifts, but considered as gifts to the "Body political" of the members of the Royal family who were gifted with it.

I guess there would be a lot of hackling about who gets what, but in the end I guess the Windsors leave with the assets that can be privately possessed while the State takes those which costs a lot of money to uphold for the public's right to access.

It is agreed by government and the Royal family that the DUchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, though "Royal" duchies, are privately owned estates. The government controls the accounts since 1848, but only to make sure there is no mismanagement of that estate, as they are currently "in trust" for the next souverain and the next Duke of Cornwall. In case of the abolition of the monarchy, these estates would still belong to their current owners, but these could then do with them whatever they wanted.



So in the end, the Windsors would keep a lot of their possessions, but as privately owned and under no govermental control.

Thanks, Kataryn, for your thorough explanation, which is more or less what I expected based on common sense. Overall, it sounds like a very good deal for the Windsors if it ever happens.

 

[royal-blue]

Divergence of William & Harry's royal roles

With the announcement of the upcoming split in the current joint Royal Household of both the Cambridges and Sussexes, along with the relocation of the Sussexes, and questions about a possible splitting of the Royal Foundation, have the riyal roles of the two brothers actually started to diverge?

Surely a new Royal Household will lead to a lot of duplication in existing roles of their staff?

 

[Iluvbertie]

William is clearly being positioned as the future King with a separate independent household while Harry is being clearly positioned as a royal with lesser status and an office located within BP where the offices of the rest of the lesser/minor royals are located - Andrew, Edward, Anne all have their offices in the set up in BP where Harry's new household are being placed.

 

[MARG]

To me, this seems redundant as the Queen's intention to cut down was announced before Prince Philip's resignation. Just as Prince Philip was supposed to slow down and it ends up that he spends most of his time at Sandringham because at Windsor he still gets sucked back in, so it is with HM.

It was announced back then that she would slow down and she didn't so now she is divesting herself of some of her favourite causes and assigning various members of her family to inherit the cause. That way she would not be sucked back in (theoretically) and, more importantly, she gets to decide who gets what.

 

[muriel]

It was announced back then that she would slow down and she didn't so now she is divesting herself of some of her favourite causes and assigning various members of her family to inherit the cause. That way she would not be sucked back in (theoretically) and, more importantly, she gets to decide who gets what.

I don't think anything has changed radically. Over the last 5-10 years, small and measured changes have been taking place on an ongoing basis, with responsibilities being passed on and patronages passed down regularly. Not convinced about the "favourite" causes though.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

...I think by the time Charles is King there's going to be a need for other Royals to help out...certainly by the time William is King. There's no way by the time it's down to William they could carry out the engagements going on currently.

I have a feeling people are forgetting how old Charles is. The man is 70. This means that it is highly unlikely that the Sussex children will be old enough to do royal duties while Charles is alive.

It’s King William who will decide about Harry’s kids. And in 30 years it is quite possible that George, Charlotte, Louis + spouses will all be working royals. This would make it at least 10 full time working royals, probably more with Edward and Sophie. I really don’t think the UK needs more than that.

The queen has had 4 children, Charles only two. That is a totally different situation. If Anne and Edward & Sophie didn't exist, Beatrice and Eugene would be doing Royal duties nowadays along with William & Harry. Okay, William already has 3 children, but nowadays doing Royal duties is not all young people hope to do for a living. Maybe Charlotte wants to become a marine biologist or decides to study arithmetic to become a teacher like one of the elder Spanish infantas? Or a model like Theodora Greece and Nicolai of Denmark? Edward & Sophie hoped for a different way of life at first than being working Royals. Back then it was very difficult, but times have changed and nowadays a prince or princess studying cinematography to become a director? Why not?

If the British royal family feels it is necessary to avoid the working royal family becoming smaller, they will inevitably need to plan on adding the York princesses as working royals when Queen Elizabeth II, the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra retire or pass away, as the likelihood is that the Prince of Wales' grandchildren will not yet be of age to perform duties full time at that point.

However, I am in agreement with Princess Larisa's appraisal that it appears likelier that the British royal family feels secure with the expectation that the number of working royals will shrink.

See Somebody's precise calculations, which use the assumption that the current working royals will remain active until age 85:

Taking a cut-off point of 85 years (it seems that most royals stay quite active until about that age; for example, the Duke of Kent at age 83 took on 92 engagements so far this year; comparable to his 10 year younger cousin the Duke of Gloucester):
- by January 2019 there are 15 full-time royals;
- by January 2029 this number will most likely drop to about 12 (still more than enough imo),
- 10 years (2039) the numbers will be at a relatively low point (if Charles is king at that point it will be 8-9 active royals; if it's William, we're talking about 7 - the Cambridge kids are in their early 20's and can take on an engagement here and there but most likely will focus on their studies);
- another 10 years (2049) later the numbers are going up again to 9-12 full-time royals (depending on whether the Cambridge kids have spouses that become active full-time royals) which should be more than sufficient;
- another 10 years down the line (so in 40 years/2059), we're still at 9-10 full time royals.
- by 2069 (50 years from now), we might get to another low point with William, Catherine, Harry and Meghan all being in their mid- to late eighties and only George and his siblings fully active; however, as king and queen William and Catherine will most likely still take on quite a large amount of engagements; and by that point George hopefully has grown children of his own supplying another generation of royals.

Indeed, nobody is needed right now. If they want to stay at about the same number of active members the York princesses should be added sometime in the next 5 years or so; as Harry only recently started full-time it would be perfectly reasonable to start while in their mid-thirties).

The same reasoning applies to H&M's children: they won't be needed by the time they are old enough to start royal duties as the BRF will have adjusted to a smaller number (going from 15 to about 12 in the next 10 years and going down to about 8-10 in 20 years and stabilizing at that point.

Of course, if the next 20-30 years show that 8-10 full time royals is not enough, they will first call upon the York princesses, probably the Wessex children and in 30 years on the Sussex children to help out. However, that seems an unlikely scenario.

I decided to look back to see what the numbers of active members were 10 and 20 years ago:

Jan 2009: 13 (excluding the Cambridges, Sussexes and adding the duke of Edinburgh & duchess of Kent)
Jan 1999: 11-12 (excluding Camilla, the Wessexes, the Cambridges, the Sussexes; and adding the duke of Edinburgh, duchess of Kent, Queen-mother, princess Margaret; I am not sure how active the Queen Mother was aged 99)

Going back to the start of her reign:
The queen started with 7 active members (not counting queen Mary who passed away a year later): herself, the duke of Edinburgh, the queen-mother, the princess Margaret and the duke and duchess of Gloucester and the dowager duchess of Kent as active members.
She purposefully enlarged that number to include 3 more members in the next 10 years, raising the number to about 10 (as expected the duke of Kent and therefore also the duchess of Kent, and (not-necessarily expected princess Alexandra.

 

[tommy100]

I think back at the start of the Queen's reign there was probably a need for more royals, remember the Queen mother didn't go back to royal duties immediately and the Queen had a lot of overseas travel to do often by sea and certainly for longer tours than now.

To me back then tours lasted weeks not days so having more people then than now probably works out the same in the end, IMO.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The premise though is that the BRF will continue to do around 4000 engagements per year. I suspect the intention is to not only cut back the number of working members of the firm but also the total number of engagements.

Of course if everyone did 500 - as Anne and Charles do now - then they only need 8 anyway - Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine, Harry, Sophie, Andrew, Edward and Anne makes 9.

Go forward 20 years and George will be 25 - as old as the Queen was when she became Queen so old enough to do 500 and replace Camilla.

Two years later Charlotte could replace Charles.

Then Louis replaces Anne

George's wife replaces Andrew

Louis' wife replaces Edward

etc etc etc

 

[JR76]

The premise though is that the BRF will continue to do around 4000 engagements per year. I suspect the intention is to not only cut back the number of working members of the firm but also the total number of engagements.

Of course if everyone did 500 - as Anne and Charles do now - then they only need 8 anyway - Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine, Harry, Sophie, Andrew, Edward and Anne makes 9.

Go forward 20 years and George will be 25 - as old as the Queen was when she became Queen so old enough to do 500 and replace Camilla.

Two years later Charlotte could replace Charles.

Then Louis replaces Anne

George's wife replaces Andrew

Louis' wife replaces Edward

etc etc etc

I doubt that George and Charlotte will do 500 engagements a year when their parents aged 36 don't even do half that amount

 

[Pranter]

I fully expect the Cambridge children to be given some years to ease into being full time royals the same as their parents.

I don't think it likely they will hit 25 and turn into full time royals the next day.

The Wessexes, Andrew and Princess Anne will either be very aged or gone.

That leaves 5 Cambridges and 3 Sussexes (unless they have one more child..then 4)..so a max of 9 core members...5 of which may not even be full time royals at that point.

So there will either be a reduction of engagements or a request for Harry's kids to go full time at some point..and they will be HRH's after Charles is King...unless their parents decide to go the way of the Wessexes.




LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

I doubt that George and Charlotte will do 500 engagements a year when their parents aged 36 don't even do half that amount

I am not saying they will but they could.

If they are really going to keep up the number of current engagements with a smaller workforce then that workforce is going to have to do more.

They have to either increase the number of engagements per person OR reduce number of engagements overall to about half what they do now as a family.

 

[Pranter]

Bertie do you think we will see at least one of the York girls (Eugenie?) go into more of a working Royal position? Her event with Andrew this last week made me wonder.


LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

No I don't think they will ever be working royals.

Beatrice even had a solo mention in the CC last year for an event but that is a once a year type thing.

If Andrew had his way they would be it seems - and both girls have done the odd engagement with him but the plan going forward seems to be to cut them out totally with even suggestions that Charles intends on cutting out Andrew and possibly Edward and Sophie, but not Anne.