The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #481  
Old 09-18-2017, 04:47 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
This was the case at one time.
But recently I've heard that the Queen usually goes to Windsor on Thursday and returns to BP on Tuesday.

It seems as she gets older, the Queen prefers to spend more and more time at Windsor.

What about when Charles becomes king?
Will the Cambridges stay put, or move to Clarence House?
1. You're right! The Queen (as I wrote in post 473) leaves London on Thursday (used to be Friday) afternoon for Windsor, returning sometime on Monday (some sources say Tuesday).

2. If you read what I wrote in post 473, then you can how many nigth the Queen spended at BP from 2011 to 2015 and what the palace has said about William when it comes to his residence as heir and king.
__________________

__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 09-18-2017, 04:52 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 1,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Kate moved several times when she was a child. The Middletons even spent 2 years living in Jordan. Mike and Carole sold the family home and moved into a larger home after she got married. By the time William is King the kids will be ready for boarding school. William is the one with attachment to KP but even he didn't want to live in Diana's old apartment. CH is just down the street from BP. KP is not. George, Charlotte and Baby Cambridge will all need places to live in London. Apt 1a is prime location for adult Charlotte or baby Cambridge to live.
And that's assuming Charles has an early death, which I wouldn't presume given the longevity of his parents. At 68, he could very well live another 25-30 years. So instead of "boarding school" you could be looking at a 34-year-old George, 32-year-old Charlotte, and 29-year-old C3.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 09-18-2017, 09:38 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,867
I believe that Charles will reside at BP because that is where the Monarch lives. He is not one to shake up things too much and as the government were definitely not in favour of the Queen and Prince Philip remaining in CH it is not designated as the heir's residence.

It is quite possible that when CH becomes vacant that William and Catherine will neither want nor need to move from their enormous KP apartment. As to BP, HM is not the only royal in residence. Princess Anne and Prince Andrew have suites or apartments for town engagements.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 09-18-2017, 11:25 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
And that's assuming Charles has an early death, which I wouldn't presume given the longevity of his parents. At 68, he could very well live another 25-30 years. So instead of "boarding school" you could be looking at a 34-year-old George, 32-year-old Charlotte, and 29-year-old C3.
Basically the same situation we now have.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 09-19-2017, 01:52 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
I believe that Charles will reside at BP because that is where the Monarch lives. [....]
Already for years that is not the case. The Queen is slowly going to 40% of her sleeps at Windsor, with the restant spent at Buckingham, Sandringham, Balmoral, Holyroodhouse and other locations.

But it is not so important: Buckingham Palace is "the face" of the British monarchy, no matter the Queen or the King probably spends his private life elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 09-19-2017, 10:12 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Already for years that is not the case. The Queen is slowly doing 40% of her sleeps at Windsor, with the rest spent at Buckingham, Sandringham, Balmoral, Holyroodhouse and other locations.

But it is not so important: Buckingham Palace is "the face" of the British monarchy, no matter the Queen or the King probably spends his private life elsewhere.
I agree. That's the way I see it, and why the PR folks said what they did. Makes sense.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 09-19-2017, 11:47 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,867
Buckingham Palace remains the only fully functional Royal Palace and the fact the Monarch lives there brings in much needed tourist dollars. If it is no longer used as a royal residence then it becomes just another museum and not all that distinguished from the front.

I remember during one of HM's major anniversaries Andrew showing off this wonderful long gallery, probably built to stroll in during the winter. He had great fun recalling his childhood and related how he and Edward used to chase each other driving their pedal cars and generally having the normal sort of fun other kids have with their toys.

He also talked about how these days he looks back and sort of cringes because of the antique furniture, but his parents made a family home there and kids have accidents when live in a real home.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 09-20-2017, 12:13 AM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post

I remember during one of HM's major anniversaries Andrew showing off this wonderful long gallery, probably built to stroll in during the winter. He had great fun recalling his childhood and related how he and Edward used to chase each other driving their pedal cars and generally having the normal sort of fun other kids have with their toys.

He also talked about how these days he looks back and sort of cringes because of the antique furniture, but his parents made a family home there and kids have accidents when live in a real home.
I remember that - he said he didn't think they'd ever broken any porcelain and he was quite proud of that.
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 09-20-2017, 12:24 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,867
It was a lovely documentary and showed the kids were in no way scarred by having to live in a Palace.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 09-20-2017, 04:02 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 571
According to the Royal Family website, Buckingham Palace has served as the Monarch's London home since 1837 - i.e, since Victoria. So it's not a very long tradition at all.

George VI was living in a house in Piccadilly when he became King - so that's a very different proposition from staying on at Clarence House. Besides which, due to the circumstances of his accession, the King wanted to do everything he could to promote the idea of continuity with the reign of his father. Continuing the tradition of living at Buckingham Palace did just that.

When the Queen succeeded she was just 25 and faced not just with powerful courtiers but with the victorian and traditionalist Churchill as PM. She was never going to win any argument to stay at Clarence House against that opposition. With Charles it will be very different, an older and more assured new King who, we are constantly told, is used to getting his own way. If he wants to stay at CH (and we don't know he really wants) I would think there will be a lot more regal push back than there was in 1936 or 1952.
Reply With Quote
  #491  
Old 09-20-2017, 04:42 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
According to the Royal Family website, Buckingham Palace has served as the Monarch's London home since 1837 - i.e, since Victoria. So it's not a very long tradition at all.

George VI was living in a house in Piccadilly when he became King - so that's a very different proposition from staying on at Clarence House. Besides which, due to the circumstances of his accession, the King wanted to do everything he could to promote the idea of continuity with the reign of his father. Continuing the tradition of living at Buckingham Palace did just that.

When the Queen succeeded she was just 25 and faced not just with powerful courtiers but with the victorian and traditionalist Churchill as PM. She was never going to win any argument to stay at Clarence House against that opposition. With Charles it will be very different, an older and more assured new King who, we are constantly told, is used to getting his own way. If he wants to stay at CH (and we don't know he really wants) I would think there will be a lot more regal push back than there was in 1936 or 1952.
Kinda fun, not so? Looking forward to it.

But I also think that is why Charles gets the bum press. IMO, as I've watched the press in Britain, I think there are PTB that would prefer Charles gets scrambled in translation, so they pretty much 'spin' the public to that end. In this I think the two Princes are unwitting pawns, playing into the hands of those who are uneasy with a strong monarch. Sad, but also fascinating drama. JMO of course.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #492  
Old 09-27-2017, 05:50 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Peru
Posts: 406
Regarding the concern about the 'large' BRF my take is that the current situation is mostly created because Elizabeth started to include the female members (princesses of the blood) more while also sticking with the 'grandchildren of the monarch' as active members of the firm.

Currently we have the following (kind of) active members of the family:
1 The Queen
2 The Prince of Wales
3 The Duchess of Cornwall
4 The Duke of Cambridge
5 The Duchess of Cambridge
6 Prince Henry of Wales
7 The Princess Royal
8 The Duke of York
9 The Earl of Wessex
10 The Countess of Wessex
11 The Duke of Gloucester
12 The Duchess of Gloucester
13 The Duke of Kent
14 Princess Alexandra, The Hon. Lady Ogilvy
15 Prince Michael of Kent
16 Princes Michael of Kent
I didn't count The Duke of Edinburgh (retired) and The Duchess of Kent (practically retired).

Had the Queen limited the cousins to only the Dukes and not included the princesses by blood after marriage (as was the custom, they would 'leave' for their husband's family). The list would have been shorter (but still be significant because of having three generations):
1 The Queen
2 The Prince of Wales
3 The Duchess of Cornwall
4 The Duke of Cambridge
5 The Duchess of Cambridge
6 Prince Henry of Wales
7 The Duke of York
8 The Earl of Wessex
9 The Countess of Wessex
10 The Duke of Gloucester
11 The Duchess of Gloucester
12 The Duke of Kent

I expect that in the future only the (future) monarch's children (and not the grandchildren) will be involved - as we already can see with Beatrice and Eugenie not being expected to fulfil royal duties. However, so for the current group that would be:
1 The Queen
2 The Prince of Wales
3 The Duchess of Cornwall
4 The Duke of Cambridge
5 The Duchess of Cambridge
6 Prince Henry of Wales
7 The Princess Royal
8 The Duke of York
9 The Earl of Wessex
10 The Countess of Wessex

However, I expect that in the future the husband's of the princesses might be involved as well. So, hypothetically that could lead to the following group under Charles (don't expect to Timothy to suddenly take up lots of royal duties, but the next generation most likely):
1 The King
2 The Queen/Princess Consort
3 The Prince of Wales
4 The Princess of Wales
5 The Duke of X (Harry)
6 The Duchess of X (Harry's wife)
7 The Princess Royal
8 The Duke of York
9 The Duke of Edinburgh
10 The Duchess of Edinburgh
[this is of course assuming that George, Charlotte and sibling won't become active member's during their grandfather's reign - at some point they might and Charles' brothers, sister and sister-and-law will be less and less active]
(The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester will be called upon less and less)


And under William (when his children are married; so this would be about the 'max'):
1. The King (William)
2. The Queen (Catherine)
3. The Prince of Wales (George)
4. The Princess of Wales (George's wife)
5. The Princess Royal (Charlotte)
6. The Earl of Y (my guess for Charlotte's husband)
7. The Duke of Z/The Princess A
8. The Duchess of Z/The Earl of Z
9. The Duke of X (Harry)
10. The Duchess of X (Harry's wife)
(William's uncles and aunts might do some royal engagements; especially when numbers 3 to 8 are not yet available for royal duties)

In the early years during William's reign (if his children are still in school/university) it could be down to 4 if it wasn't for the/some support of Charles' generation - if still alive and able of body and mind):
1. The King (William)
2. The Queen (Catherine)
3. The Duke of X (Harry)
4. The Duchess of X (Harry's wife)
5. The Duke of York
6. The Duke of Edinburgh
7. The Duchess of Edinburgh
8. The Princess Royal

So, it seems that we may expect the active royal family to consist of 8-10 members in the foreseeable future, in which you probably have a first and second tier group (monarch & heir plus spouses as the first group (unless heir is underage, than the next 'adult' couple in line) - practically about the first 4 in the situations above; and a second tier group for support (siblings of monarch and/or heir); third tier (typically number 9 or 11 and higher of active members) might be the group of siblings of former monarch (if applicable - when first and second group are large(r)).
Reply With Quote
  #493  
Old 09-27-2017, 07:24 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,047
A couple of things with that list:

Prince and Princess Michael of Kent do not carry out royal duties.

You are assuming that as soon as a monarch dies their siblings stop working as well and that won't be the case.

Other than Prince Philip the husbands of princesses have never been expected to carry out royal duties but to continue their own careers.

Easier to add ages to the present who currently carry out royal duties:

Over 90 - The Queen, Philip
80s - The Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra
70s - The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke of Gloucester, The Duchess of Gloucester
60s - The Prince of Wales, The Princess Royal
50s - The Duke of York, The Earl of Wessex, The Countess of Wessex
40s -
30s - The Duke of Cambridge, The Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry of Wales
20s -

A current total of 15

Add 20 years and we have using their current titles so people know exactly whom I am talking about:

Over 90 - The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke of Gloucester, The Duchess of Gloucester
80s - The Prince of Wales, The Princess Royal
70s - The Duke of York, The Earl of Wessex, The Countess of Wessex
60s -
50s - The Duke of Cambridge, The Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry of Wales, Princess xxxx of Wales
40s -
30s -
20s - Prince George of Cambridge, Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, Prince/Princess xxxx of Cambridge (given the fact that the last two generations haven't required royals in their 20s to undertake full-time duties I am not expecting that to change for this generation either

A possible total of 12 although the reality is that a number of those in their 80s and 90s may have either left us or retired so maybe only 7. If Charles were to stop his mother's cousins and his siblings he would be down to 6 to do what is currently being done by 15.


There is clearly no need for Beatrice or Eugenie other than the fact that in 20 years time the young working royals will be in their 50s.
Reply With Quote
  #494  
Old 09-27-2017, 08:08 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Peru
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
A couple of things with that list:

Prince and Princess Michael of Kent do not carry out royal duties.
I am aware of that; that is why I added the 'kind of'. They are included on the website of the royal family, so they have some standing as 'senior royal' (mainly because princess Alexandra would normally not be carrying out royal duties either, but the Queen wanted her to do so, so Michael is kind of an after thought as the only remaining sibling).

Quote:
You are assuming that as soon as a monarch dies their siblings stop working as well and that won't be the case.
I am not. I stated multiple times that the 'uncles and aunts' will remain active to a certain extent - they most likely will 'reduce' their workload with time. I even included William's uncles and aunts in my final list!

Quote:
Other than Prince Philip the husbands of princesses have never been expected to carry out royal duties but to continue their own careers.
Indeed, but I expect that to change as I explained (but apparently not clearly enough). Given the change of opinion and as a logical next step now the order of succession is independent of gender for those born after 2011, it would be illogical that future husband of princesses are not expected to join the firm while future wifes of princes (who could be lower in the line of succession) are. So, what I expect to happen is that the grandchildren are no longer expected to carry out royal duties, other than those by the heir (all with their spouses).

Quote:
Easier to add ages to the present who currently carry out royal duties:

Over 90 - The Queen, Philip
80s - The Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra
70s - The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke of Gloucester, The Duchess of Gloucester
60s - The Prince of Wales, The Princess Royal
50s - The Duke of York, The Earl of Wessex, The Countess of Wessex
40s -
30s - The Duke of Cambridge, The Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry of Wales
20s -

A current total of 15

Add 20 years and we have using their current titles so people know exactly whom I am talking about:

Over 90 - The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke of Gloucester, The Duchess of Gloucester
80s - The Prince of Wales, The Princess Royal
70s - The Duke of York, The Earl of Wessex, The Countess of Wessex
60s -
50s - The Duke of Cambridge, The Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry of Wales, Princess xxxx of Wales
40s -
30s -
20s - Prince George of Cambridge, Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, Prince/Princess xxxx of Cambridge (given the fact that the last two generations haven't required royals in their 20s to undertake full-time duties I am not expecting that to change for this generation either

A possible total of 12 although the reality is that a number of those in their 80s and 90s may have either left us or retired so maybe only 7. If Charles were to stop his mother's cousins and his siblings he would be down to 6 to do what is currently being done by 15.

There is clearly no need for Beatrice or Eugenie other than the fact that in 20 years time the young working royals will be in their 50s.
Great addition! Although it does not address the 'basic idea' behind who is involved and who is not, which is what I was trying to get to, i.e., to figure out what it might mean if to 'reduce the size' of the royal family while also incorporating 'modern' ideas such as having princesses by blood carry out royal duties after marriage; or in other words come up with a 'future proof system' (knowing that of course times change, so this also might change); but I'd like to think that there is some idea behind what the BRF does. However, it seems you land at the same people from a more pragmatic point of view.
Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 09-27-2017, 08:29 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Peru
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
The Queen needed her cousins to be working Royals before her children were old enough to take on duties. Just the Queen, Philip, her mother and sister were not enough working Royals. And Richard gave up his career as an architect to become a working Royal--it would be poor form to kick the cousins to the curb after they sacrificed for the Royal Family. So they continued to work, and the working family grew. Limiting to male line is pretty regressive.
Indeed, that was common practice before (i.e., it was limited to the male-line; the HRH treatment still is!), but I specifically stated that I don't think that should continue. Not sure why you think (that I think) otherwise... Instead I expect them to no longer ask the grandchildren but only the children (both sons and daughters - and their spouses (so not only wives but also husbands)) to be active members of the firm. Traditionally only sons, daughters-in-law, daughters, and male-line grandchildren (and limited to oldest sons with their spouses) were expected to carry out royal duties - Margaret's children for example were never expected to carry out royal duties; nor were princess Mary's (aunt of Queen Elizabeth)...

As I said, the expectation traditionally was that the royal dukes were active members of the firm. That is why Richard indeed was not expected to be a full-time royal; the expectation was that his older brother (the expected future Duke of Gloucester) would be active for the firm as a 'royal duke' - as was his cousin the Duke of Kent (who took over that title at a younger age). So, only when his brother died and he became the heir to the Duke of Gloucester title that expectation changed. What was uncommon was that the Queen also asked princess Alexandra to 'join the firm'.
Reply With Quote
  #496  
Old 09-27-2017, 09:54 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I am aware of that; that is why I added the 'kind of'. They are included on the website of the royal family, so they have some standing as 'senior royal' (mainly because princess Alexandra would normally not be carrying out royal duties either, but the Queen wanted her to do so, so Michael is kind of an after thought as the only remaining sibling).
But Michael and Marie-Christine do NOT carry out royal duties even if listed in the list for the CC. They very occasionally appear at a major royal event - the same as Beatrice and Eugenie.

The online CC is so unreliable as to be a joke anyway - no update for instance for a week now.


Quote:
I am not. I stated multiple times that the 'uncles and aunts' will remain active to a certain extent - they most likely will 'reduce' their workload with time. I even included William's uncles and aunts in my final list!
Sorry misread that bit


Quote:
Indeed, but I expect that to change as I explained (but apparently not clearly enough). Given the change of opinion and as a logical next step now the order of succession is independent of gender for those born after 2011, it would be illogical that future husband of princesses are not expected to join the firm while future wifes of princes (who could be lower in the line of succession) are. So, what I expect to happen is that the grandchildren are no longer expected to carry out royal duties, other than those by the heir (all with their spouses).
I would think - given the way Edward's children are titled and the rumour of a downsized monarchy - that the intention is to reduce who can be HRH to the children of the monarch, the children of the heir apparent and the heir apparent's heir apparent but not to the children of other younger siblings regardless of gender.


Quote:
Great addition! Although it does not address the 'basic idea' behind who is involved and who is not, which is what I was trying to get to, i.e., to figure out what it might mean if to 'reduce the size' of the royal family while also incorporating 'modern' ideas such as having princesses by blood carry out royal duties after marriage; or in other words come up with a 'future proof system' (knowing that of course times change, so this also might change); but I'd like to think that there is some idea behind what the BRF does. However, it seems you land at the same people from a more pragmatic point of view.
The only 'princesses of the blood' who will carry out royal duties going forward - in about 30 years or so will be Charlotte and the new baby if a girl. There is no intention for Beatrice or Eugenie - the only 'princesses of the blood' in their generation and there was only one in the generation before them - Anne.

The idea is to reduce the size so husbands won't be called upon unless the wife is the heir apparent. I also think it is time for the wives to say the same thing - I have a career and am continuing with that - unless again marrying the heir apparent.

The duties they do are largely a 20th century invention to keep the family relevant to British life in the aftermath of the first world war. Prior to that they largely spent their time doing not much - other than the monarch and heir. I do think the intention is to go back to that system with way fewer engagements - down from the current 4000 or so per year carried out by 15 or so family members to around 1000 done by 4 - 5.

The only essential duties are the boxes and the Opening of Parliament and meeting the PM. The rest aren't essential at all.
Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 09-27-2017, 10:05 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Peru
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
But Michael and Marie-Christine do NOT carry out royal duties even if listed in the list for the CC. They very occasionally appear at a major royal event - the same as Beatrice and Eugenie.

The online CC is so unreliable as to be a joke anyway - no update for instance for a week now.
Agree that their position has always been awkward; they very much wanted to be more relevant than they have been.

Quote:
I would think - given the way Edward's children are titled and the rumour of a downsized monarchy - that the intention is to reduce who can be HRH to the children of the monarch, the children of the heir apparent and the heir apparent's heir apparent but not to the children of other younger siblings regardless of gender.
That was also what I was referring to in my post in the Cambridge pregnancy topic; it would be the most logical thing to do; in that way the Royal Highnesses are expected to be active members of the firm and the Lords and Ladies within the family aren't. From that perspective it is interesting to see how some hope that the Queen will award Harry's children the HRH from birth even if his father isn't King yet. I agree that the opposite direction (his children wouldn't be HRH) is more likely.

Quote:
The only 'princesses of the blood' who will carry out royal duties going forward - in about 30 years or so will be Charlotte and the new baby if a girl. There is no intention for Beatrice or Eugenie - the only 'princesses of the blood' in their generation and there was only one in the generation before them - Anne.
In the generation before that both Margaret (logical as sister of the monarch) and Alexandra (less logical as cousin of the monarch) were asked to fulfil royal duties.

Quote:
The idea is to reduce the size so husbands won't be called upon unless the wife is the heir apparent. I also think it is time for the wives to say the same thing - I have a career and am continuing with that - unless again marrying the heir apparent.
This is probably the only point on which we disagree. I like the idea of a couple being in it together - whether a prince of the blood with his wife or a princess of the blood with her husband. The alternative is that also the prince(ss) of the blood (non-heirs) has a day-to-day job and is also occasionally called upon for royal duties (as we see in many other monarchies).

Quote:
The duties they do are largely a 20th century invention to keep the family relevant to British life in the aftermath of the first world war. Prior to that they largely spent their time doing not much - other than the monarch and heir. I do think the intention is to go back to that system with way fewer engagements - down from the current 4000 or so per year carried out by 15 or so family members to around 1000 done by 4 - 5.

The only essential duties are the boxes and the Opening of Parliament and meeting the PM. The rest aren't essential at all.
Makes sense. Although I do think that it would be nice if they were more active in the other parts of the Commonwealth where the Queen is Head of State. So, for those reasons they might need the siblings to stay a little more active than otherwise needed. However, for those siblings it would be helpful if there are clear expectations: are they supposed to dedicate their lives to the firm or find their own way in life with some minor royal duties.
Reply With Quote
  #498  
Old 09-27-2017, 10:09 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The online CC is so unreliable as to be a joke anyway - no update for instance for a week now.
Why do you think that is so? Do you think it is intentional, to throw off those who are counting?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The idea is to reduce the size so husbands won't be called upon unless the wife is the heir apparent. I also think it is time for the wives to say the same thing - I have a career and am continuing with that - unless again marrying the heir apparent.
Exactly so!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The duties they do are largely a 20th century invention to keep the family relevant to British life in the aftermath of the first world war. Prior to that they largely spent their time doing not much - other than the monarch and heir. I do think the intention is to go back to that system with way fewer engagements - down from the current 4000 or so per year carried out by 15 or so family members to around 1000 done by 4 - 5.
Thank you for placing all this in an historical context. It's important. The current 'work of the royals' is really not all that 'necessary', and it's costly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The only essential duties are the boxes and the Opening of Parliament and meeting the PM. The rest aren't essential at all.
So we will see a much different monarchy even under Charles.

Do you think Charles will 'slim down' the coronation? Maybe make the anointing a private affair rather than broadcast? What do you think, Iluvbertie?
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 09-27-2017, 10:59 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,047
I think Charles will have the full ceremonial coronation. He was there for the anointing and crowing of his mother (although not for the rest of the ceremony) and is one of the last remaining who was - Philip, Edward of Kent, Alexandra, Michael and Richard of Gloucester of course but not many left.

I think William will move to a more streamlined affair and maybe not even a coronation as such but more like the Europeans where he takes the oath at his accession council and that is it with no formal ceremony at all and certainly not on the scale of The Queen's.
Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 09-27-2017, 11:35 PM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,031
Thank you, Iluvbertie. It will be something to watch, then. The last of a kind.
__________________

__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
future of the monarchy


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
Future of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1342 Today 01:19 PM
Prince Albert, Duke of York and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon - 1923 Mandy Historical Royal Weddings 36 04-08-2016 03:45 AM
The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne Ellie2 British Royals 212 12-29-2015 11:18 AM
Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip's Visit to The Netherlands: February 5, 2007 Empress Dutch Royals 54 02-08-2007 03:04 AM
Relationship between King Juan Carlos and Queen Elizabeth Conde Valleverde King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia 4 11-12-2004 09:54 PM




Popular Tags
baptism best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events david armstrong-jones denmark duchess of cambridge gala dress earl of snowdon fascism general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy nazi news pablo urdangarín picture of the week portugal prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince nicholas prince oscar princess alexandra of luxembourg princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia gowns queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queenmother queen rania queen silvia state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:21 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises