The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Ista]

William and Harry's roles are totally unalike, as others have noted. While they both appear in the news, and have public engagements, the substance of what they do is significantly different, and warrants William and Catherine being set into a different category than Harry and Meghan. It's just the way it is.

 

[Abbigail]

William and Harry's roles are totally unalike, as others have noted. While they both appear in the news, and have public engagements, the substance of what they do is significantly different, and warrants William and Catherine being set into a different category than Harry and Meghan. It's just the way it is.

One could argue that Will has started to do additional duties that places him a level above but the substance of what they do is not at all significantly different. And there is even less difference between Meghan and Catherine.

 

[Dman]

When does Harry perform investitures? I can't find anything in my, admittedly fairly quick, searches. William seems to perform them regularly these days.

Harry do the odd Investitures on The Queen’s behalf when he’s on royal tours and palace engagements. He just don’t do the more formal ceremonial Investitures we see conducted by The Queen, Charles, William and Anne.

 

[evolvingdoors]

Are Harry and Meghan effectively now minor royals? If so, is this a deliberate downgrading of their status on their part? In comparison, were Andrew & Sarah considered as important/senior as Charles & Diana? And if so, when did they stop being seen as such?

There are those who claim they’re seniors, relaying on the fact that Harry is Charles son.
But a royal seniority is connected to their overall importance to the crown in terms of succession, which in the long haul is what important for the continuation of the monarchy. Harry is simply no longer as important as he was when he was William’s spare. In fact he was relegated to minor the second George was born and William own line was secured.
In fact every action taken by the royals in regards to Harry: from the technically private wedding vs. semi state wedding, but especially since the wedding (BP offices, not having his own household persay) proves that in terms of his importance he is effectively regarded as a minor royal- same as the queen other children.

I know some fans here don’t like viewing him as such, but he is minor, and that means any wife he has or will have is also a minor royal too.

 

[Curryong]

Harry has performed investitures when on tour. The last was in Morocco when a Mr McHugo was invested with an MBE for services to education.

Evolvingdoors, you keep repeating that Harry is a minor Royal. Apart from your own certainty on that question can you produce any written documentation from a viable source (BP?) to support that assertion (that the Queen and the POW regards Harry as unimportant.) Just so that we can all view it.

And after all, we (including presumably yourself) wouldn't want to waste any more of the 47,000+ posts there are already here on the Harry/Meghan/Sussex threads, on such a minor person in the BRF, or his wife, would we?

 

[Nice Nofret]

IMHO one sees very clearly that the Cambridges are treated very differently to the Sussexes; just look at their different type of Accommodations; the differences in Houshold / Offices; and what they do on a daily basis - it is shaping before our eyes atm - and remember their respective weddings.


The Britts have a long tradition in treating the heir very different from the rest of the children - and in the Royal Family at least - it will stay like that.

 

[Curryong]

I don't think anyone is disputing that William is the heir, just that Harry is officially regarded as a minor Royal.

 

[Lilyflo]

I've said this before but an indication of who the senior royals are was clearly given by Charles' decision over who stood on the palace balcony for the diamond jubilee in 2012. It was just the Queen, Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine & Harry (Philip was in hospital). That's who Charles envisages as the senior royals now and in future (& now includes Meghan as Harry's wife). Obviously the children will be added as they grow up but they'll have no working role for many years.

I think Charles intends that at every major royal/state event, it will be Charles then William then Harry (with or without wives) who are front & centre - all the other working royals will be important but secondary to the core group & the non-working royals will be on the outskirts. Family events (eg weddings, birthdays, funerals) may differ of course according to whose it is & who the closest relatives are.

Now whether Charles' intentions match Harry's is unknown. It might be that Harry prefers the relative freedom of being the 2nd son & wishes to exploit that in order to do things that William can't do. Also, the brothers clearly have different roles already & that will be even more apparent when William is Prince of Wales but I'd be very surprised if at the main royal/state occasions, Charles only includes William at his side.

 

[wyevale]

The fact that William and Catherine will one day be King and Queen makes them significantly different from those who will not...

 

[Lilyflo]

I don't think anyone is disputing that are they?

 

[Blog Real]

I think Harry & Meghan will play an important role at least until the children of William and Kate are adults. I think they will be able to make some official trips and attend royal marriages from other royal families, for example, as do the Earl of Wessex. William and Kate will obviously have the most important tasks. And yes, it is already noticeable that the Dukes of Cambridge have already begun to be treated differently from the Dukes of Sussex.

 

[Osipi]

When it comes down to the royal family, I don't think the Queen values what one royal does as more "important" than what another one does. They're all important in her eyes and its the teamwork that is important to the monarchy at this time.

The focus of the work William does is significantly different from Harry's at this point. William is the future king and when the time does come for him to ascend the throne, he's going to be as well prepared for the role as his father is now. When William is king, he's also going to need the support system like the Queen does today with her family members. I can pretty much see Harry being William's right hand man as George begins to learn how to work the ropes as much as William is doing now. Its a process.

I think they have things pretty well set up for Charles' reign. William, as heir and possibly Prince of Wales will have his role cut out for him following in his father's footsteps. Harry (and Meghan) have been entrusted with the roles of focusing on the Commonwealth as I'm sure the Queen wishes to ensure that the "family" of nations continues into the future. We have known for a long while that the eventual role for Edward is going to lie with the Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme and he'll carry his father's title while doing it. Andrew most likely will continue his own Pitch@Palace scheme and Anne continue with Save the Children and her involvement in the Olympic Games.

The core of the family under Charles will be his own heir and spouse and their children as they're the future of the monarchy itself. In time, Charles' siblings will either pass on or retire and what happens with the up and coming younger generation has plenty of time to be worked out and adapted to the needs of the monarchy. It'll be another 25 or so years until that happens and no one can predict what our world and its needs will be like then. One thing for sure is that the monarchy will address every issue and every consideration and plan ahead as it does now. Harry and Meghan are never going to lose their importance to the monarchy itself as their roles are pretty much being carved out for their lifetime. Where their children fit into the scheme of things is yet to be determined.

When you think about it, anything can happen between now and when George ascends the throne. I won't be here to see it but its an incentive to live as long as I can and become a burden to my children.

 

[Mbruno]

Harry has performed Investitures and is a Counsellor of State (Privy Council.)

Harry is a Counsellor of State by law, but I don't think he is a Privy Councillor. William is both a Counsellor of State and a Privy Councillor.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

[...] can you produce any written documentation from a viable source (BP?) to support that assertion [...]

To the best of my knowledge, the Palace has never published a document stating which family members are considered "royals", much less a document stating which members are minor, senior, important, unimportant, etc. There is a list of members of the Royal Family, but even Mia and Lena Tindall are included in it. I don't think any poster in the thread has claimed to have a written assertion from the Palace regarding the status or importance of royals.

The distinction, if there is any, between senior or minor royal is therefore dependent on personal opinion. Various posters in this thread have based their opinions upon the line of succession, the order of precedence, relation to the monarch, treatment by the Palace, quantity of public duties, nature of public duties, and level of media coverage. Each of the different definitions naturally ends with a different assessment of "seniority".

And after all, we (including presumably yourself) wouldn't want to waste any more of the 47,000+ posts there are already here on the Harry/Meghan/Sussex threads, on such a minor person in the BRF, or his wife, would we?

I do not know the original poster's opinions, but I would need to disagree with connecting importance to the number of posts on TRF - since the British royal family is the topic of more posts than any other royal family, they would be regarded as more important than any other royal family in the world if that were the case.

 

[Mbruno]

To the best of my knowledge, the Palace has never published a document stating which family members are considered "royals", much less a document stating which members are minor, senior, important, unimportant, etc. There is a list of members of the Royal Family, but even Mia and Lena Tindall are included in it. I don't think any poster in the thread has cited a written assertion from the Palace regarding the status or importance of royals.

That is an important point. Unlike in the Netherlands or some other countries, there is no official definition of "membership of the Royal House" in the UK. There is only a loose definition of "the Royal Family", which seems to be based on proximity of blood to the Queen rather than on whether a person is an HRH or not.



"Membership of the Royal House" is actually a tricky point as it doesn't follow a uniform rule on an international basis. For example, in Spain, there are HRHs like the Infantas Elena, Cristina, Pilar or Margarita who nonetheless are not (currently) members of the Royal House. Conversely, in the Netherlands, before Queen Beatrix's abdication, there were non-HRHs like Prince Constantijn's children who were nonetheless members of the Royal House (as relatives of the reigning queen in the second degree of kinship and not excluded from the line of succession).



Sweden seems to be more consistent: currently all HRHs (including Princess Brigitta, who is not in the line of succession) are listed as members of the Royal House, whereas non-HRHs (including King Carl Gustaf's other sisters) are listed as members of the extended "Royal Family", but not of the "Royal House". Personally, I think that should be the right criteria.

 

[Mirabel]

I do not know the original poster's opinions, but I would need to disagree with connecting importance to the number of posts on TRF - since the British royal family is the topic of more posts than any other royal family, they would be regarded as more important than any other royal family in the world if that were the case.

That is surprising in itself.
Even in this forum, where people are interested in royalty from all times and places, the British RF dominate.

Why is that?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That is an important point. Unlike the Netherlands or some other countries, there is no official definition of "membership of the Royal House" in the UK. There is only a loose definition of the Royal Family, which seems to be based on proximity of blood to the Queen rather than whether a person is an HRH or not.

"Membership of the Royal House" is actually a tricky point as it doesn't follow a uniform rule on an international basis. For example, in Spain, there are HRHs like the Infantas Elena, Cristina, Pilar or Margarita who nonetheless are not (currently) members of the Royal House. Conversely, in the Netherlands, before Queen Beatrix's abdication, there were non-HRH like Prince Constantijn's children who were nonetheless members of the Royal House (as relatives of the reigning queen in the second degree of kinship and not excluded from the line of succession).

Sweden seems to be more consistent: currently all HRHs (including Princess Brigitta, who is not in the line of succession) are listed as members of the Royal House, whereas non-HRHs (including King Carl Gustaf's other sisters) are listed as members of the extended "Royal Family", but not of the "Royal House". Personally, I think that should be the right criteria.

Yes, not to mention Pieter van Vollenhoven, who remains a member of the Royal House and a working member of the Firm, but is still not styled with any title whatsoever or even the name of Orange-Nassau.

I think Japan, which has the most consistent system out of the apolitical monarchies, is the perfect model for the others, insofar as membership of the royal family is defined by an Act of Parliament, members are consistently working royals and have royal status and titles, and non-members are consistently untitled and are private citizens who play no role in the monarchy.

 

[royal-blue]

Personally, I feel that now is the ideal time to politely give the Queen's cousins the option to retire on a generous pension package. With the addition of four extra full time working royals in the last few years, they are of much less significance already, but if they were to be given the option to choose to retire now, it would save them being put out to pasture by Charles in the future.

 

[Mbruno]

That is surprising in itself.
Even in this forum, where people are interested in royalty from all times and places, the British RF dominate.

Why is that?

First of all, there are lots of members from English-speaking countries , where the British RF is by far the most well-known RF, and the English-speaking media, which has a broader international reach than media in other languages, tends to cover the British RF more than any other. If that were a Spanish-language site, I suppose there would probably be more posts about the Spanish RF for example.


Second, the British RF naturally has a higher profile than other European RFs. The Queen has been on the throne for 67 years and is still the Head of State of 16 different countries, including Australia and Canada. She is also an icon in big Commonwealth countries in the developing world like India, Nigeria, or South Africa.


Furthermore, after republics were established in countries like France, Russia, Germany or Austria-Hungary, the UK and Spain are pretty much the only remaining "large" European countries that still have a monarchy. Both the Netherlands and Belgium once held large colonial empires and have a proud economic history, but I wouldn't compare them in international profile to Britain, France, or Germany for example. Besides, the Benelux monarchies are quite young, dating back only to the 19th century. Denmark and Sweden on the other hand have old monarchies with a long history and tradition, but are small countries in terms of total population. Sweden in particular actually happens to be an important industrial economy with highly advanced science and engineering, but, again, I wouldn't list as one of the major European powers in terms of international influence.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

I think Charles will downsize the monarchy.

When Charles becomes King George VII, he should make his son William, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Lord of the Isles immediately.

 

[Osipi]

Its not a given that Charles will choose to be King George VII y'know. He could very well be King Charles III. We won't know until the time actually comes.

Everything else will also be up to Charles to do at his will and pleasure. No guarantees.

 

[tommy100]

I agree with your second and third levels. But do you put HM The Queen on the same level as William and Kate, seriously?.

Below see my 5 levels (also just my opinion):
level 1 - Queen and Prince Philip
level 2 - Charles, Camilla
level 3 - William and Kate
Level 4 - Senior Royals - Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie, Harry and Meghan
level 5 - Minor Royals - Kents, Gloucesters, Princess Alexandra

Yes I put HM in the same group and William and Kate, of course HM ranks above all but precedence deals with that. I was just saying to me there are 3 groups of royals - Sovereign and direct heirs, senior royals and minor royals.

To me the fact the Queen, Charles and William all have their own independent Households shows they are treated differently from the other royals.

The Queen's Household supports the offices of the other royals and Meghan and Harry are now part of that, treated the same as the Queen's children. Then you have the Queen's cousins.

I don't doubt for a second that HM is grateful to all her family for their work and sees them all equally as "members of the firm" but sheer common sense shows that some of the royal family are treated differently to each other.

 

[Blog Real]

I think Charles will downsize the monarchy.

When Charles becomes King George VII, he should make his son William, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Lord of the Isles immediately.

Is Charles going to take the name of George VII?
Charles will be king at an advanced age and so William will play a very important role at that time, apart from being Prince of Wales.
I also think he will make some changes in the monarchy more especially in the royal family.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

Is Charles going to take the name of George VII?
Charles will be king at an advanced age and so William will play a very important role at that time, apart from being Prince of Wales.
I also think he will make some changes in the monarchy more especially in the royal family.

I think he will.

When William becomes Prince of Wales and Lord of the Isles, George and Charlotte will have plenty of work to do.

 

[jacqui24]

The Queen's Household supports the offices of the other royals and Meghan and Harry are now part of that, treated the same as the Queen's children. Then you have the Queen's cousins.

I don't know how much it is about treatment rather than practicality of it all. The fact of the matter is that funding was determined generations ago. Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall, has independent funding and is expected to fund for himself and his family. The Queen funds herself and everyone else. Up til now, this has worked, but Duchy of Cornwall while substantial, wasn't designed to support the PoW and his household along with households for two families. It was made very clear the Queen is chipping in here.

 

[Curryong]

Westfield Bakery, Considering that the Queen is 93 this year and therefore Charles's reign will likely come in the next five or six years, the only work George and Charlotte will be doing at under ten/eleven years old will be their school work.

 

[LauraS3514]

I think Charles will downsize the monarchy.

When Charles becomes King George VII, he should make his son William, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Lord of the Isles immediately.

When his father becomes King, William automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothsay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Refrew, and Lord of the Isles as the eldest son who is also heir apparent. Only "Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester" need to be specifically created and the new king may wait months to do so, as Edward VII did for the future George V; he may do so right after his mother's funeral and mourning period; or not at all (unlikely).

 

[Fijiro]

Yes I put HM in the same group and William and Kate, of course HM ranks above all but precedence deals with that. I was just saying to me there are 3 groups of royals - Sovereign and direct heirs, senior royals and minor royals.

To me the fact the Queen, Charles and William all have their own independent Households shows they are treated differently from the other royals.

The Queen's Household supports the offices of the other royals and Meghan and Harry are now part of that, treated the same as the Queen's children. Then you have the Queen's cousins.

I don't doubt for a second that HM is grateful to all her family for their work and sees them all equally as "members of the firm" but sheer common sense shows that some of the royal family are treated differently to each other.

I agree with you and also on the part that I bolded. I just wanted to add that, at the moment, William's household is supported by Prince Charles.

 

[padams2359]

I'm going to blame the omission of Charles and Camilla on my dog. He's got a new toy that squeaks and that distracts me. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Thanks for pointing out my omission. How could I forget the heir apparent to the throne??? Yeps... the dog did it.



This also applies to the differences between the line of succession and the order of precedence. Got that wrong too didn't I?



BTW: the toy is a flying pink pig. Kind of fitting don't you think?

The world has gone paperless, but somehow the dog still gets blamed.

 

[Fijiro]

The world has gone paperless, but somehow the dog still gets blamed.

IMO she wasn't actually blaming the dog, as you can see from her use of these symbols