The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 01-29-2007, 10:23 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
I don't think the title is the issue. They could have 50 HRHs, it's more about who carries out engagements and who gets paid.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 01-29-2007, 11:57 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
But the title adds visibility and an association to someone which they would otherwise not have. Just look at Peter and Zara Phillips' lives compared to their cousins.

I think right now a title without a workload that provides some controlled amount of the right type of visibility can generate press coverage that the royals didn't account for.

In earlier times with strict social structures, the social codes of the day dictated people's behavior but now that the class structure and what it means to be royal is changing, the royal family doesn't have as firm a grip on its members' behaviors as previous generations did. At the very least, they don't have control of the press that they once did and that's a real issue with there are a lot of HRHs running around with no responsibilities.
__________________

__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 01-29-2007, 12:23 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 153
This sort of out of control royals situation is so similar to that of the Romanovs. They were eager for the privileges, reluctant about the duties, and didn't care about presenting a proper public image in order to protect the dynasty and the prestige of the monarch. They did what they wanted and also ran rampant. And then divorce....*shudder*
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 01-29-2007, 01:03 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Well one big difference between the Romanovs and the Windsors was that the czar was an absolute ruler. Accountability to the people didn't exist in principle or in reality for the Imperial family.

The modern model of the the monarch being accountable to the government and the royal family being accountable to the monarch has somewhat fallen apart too. Over the last 20-30 years, we've seen how little control the Queen has over the behavior of some of the royals.

Right now, Charles has his own press office which I don't think of as a good idea. The monarch has traditionally controlled the Buckingham Palace publicity machine and other members of the royal family didn't build their own public relations campaigns unless they cleared it with the monarch.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 01-29-2007, 03:19 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
Well one big difference between the Romanovs and the Windsors was that the czar was an absolute ruler. Accountability to the people didn't exist in principle or in reality for the Imperial family.

The modern model of the the monarch being accountable to the government and the royal family being accountable to the monarch has somewhat fallen apart too. Over the last 20-30 years, we've seen how little control the Queen has over the behavior of some of the royals.

Right now, Charles has his own press office which I don't think of as a good idea. The monarch has traditionally controlled the Buckingham Palace publicity machine and other members of the royal family didn't build their own public relations campaigns unless they cleared it with the monarch.

Actually if you study the history of the Princes of Wales and the monarchs since the start of the Hannoverians one thing that jumps out is the two courts - monarch and POW. The Queen is the only one who didn't have this double court idea - but if she had to wait another 20 years or so who knows.

In fact in the early years of the Hannoverians the POW would support the opposition party in direct opposition to the preferred party of the king. Even though Edward VII didn't do that he did operate separate court structure during his long period as POW.

Two press offices has become necessary due to the demands of the press - I am sure that CH wouldn't have set up its own press office without the consent of BP (specifically Charles would have the Queen's approval to do this).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 01-29-2007, 10:36 PM
selrahc4's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrissy57
Actually if you study the history of the Princes of Wales and the monarchs since the start of the Hannoverians one thing that jumps out is the two courts - monarch and POW. The Queen is the only one who didn't have this double court idea - but if she had to wait another 20 years or so who knows.

In fact in the early years of the Hannoverians the POW would support the opposition party in direct opposition to the preferred party of the king. Even though Edward VII didn't do that he did operate separate court structure during his long period as POW.

Two press offices has become necessary due to the demands of the press - I am sure that CH wouldn't have set up its own press office without the consent of BP (specifically Charles would have the Queen's approval to do this).
Seeing your comment (with which I agree) "The Queen is the only one who didn't have this double court idea - but if she had to wait another 20 years or so who knows." reminded me of an anecdote that I want to share.

This is from God Save The Queen (published in Britain as The Crown and the People) written by Alan A. Michie in 1952.
From the book, page 224
Quote:
...the late King took a long time to adjust himself to the realization that she was a grown girl, with a household and children of her own. One day when driving past Elizabeth's home, which was bedecked with flags, including her own standard which he had given her, George VI turned to a friend and said testily: "What is she trying to do --- set up an Empire of her own?"
__________________
aka Janet on some other forums
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 06-27-2007, 05:48 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,735
I am in no doubt that in time you will see a slimmed down monarchy, especially after Charles accedes to the throne. The York girls should really be encouraged to develop independent careers and to not carry out many public engagements (other than the occassional appearance on the balcony etc). The future of the BRF is Charles and his boys - and assuming they find suitable partners and settle down, in a few years you will have another generation of royals actively carrying out royal duties. Here again, Harry and his wife will have a much smaller role to play - not dissimilar to the one played by the Wessex´s now. That said this will clearly depend on how the wives of William and Harry get on.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 06-27-2007, 06:35 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 8,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
I am in no doubt that in time you will see a slimmed down monarchy, especially after Charles accedes to the throne. The York girls should really be encouraged to develop independent careers and to not carry out many public engagements (other than the occassional appearance on the balcony etc). The future of the BRF is Charles and his boys - and assuming they find suitable partners and settle down, in a few years you will have another generation of royals actively carrying out royal duties. Here again, Harry and his wife will have a much smaller role to play - not dissimilar to the one played by the Wessex´s now. That said this will clearly depend on how the wives of William and Harry get on.
Not to forget Charles's brothers & sisters, some of them already do a lot, some could do more. For those who only play a smaller role I would be pleased if they'd do something substantial and don't hit the headlines for their partying, eg as Zara Phillips, a great ambassador not only for Britain but also for the Royal Family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 06-29-2007, 04:53 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,735
Anne does a lot of charitable work and is recognised as being a haredworking royal. Not sure the same can be said of "Air Miles Andy" and to a lesser extent, the Wessex´s (though they have managed to keep out of trouble). Once William, Harry and their wives are up and running, Andrew and the Wessex´s should be pensioned off (from HMs personal resources) and should not take on any substantial roles
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 06-29-2007, 10:52 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
Anne does a lot of charitable work and is recognised as being a haredworking royal. Not sure the same can be said of "Air Miles Andy" and to a lesser extent, the Wessex´s (though they have managed to keep out of trouble). Once William, Harry and their wives are up and running, Andrew and the Wessex´s should be pensioned off (from HMs personal resources) and should not take on any substantial roles

I think that William and Harry should replace the generation of Her Majesty - the Gloucesters and Kents rather than Prince Andrew and Prince Edward. What would you have these men do remembering that they have no training to do anything else and are currently only 47 and 43 respectively - far to young to be pensioned off?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 06-29-2007, 11:38 AM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
I disagree--the Earl and Countess of Wessex do a great deal of charitable work. I would write the lists of the organizations they each are patron of but it would take too long.
Here is the Countess' list of 55 organizations (and please note how many children's organizations there are--she is very keen on working with children's needs and communication disorders):
The Monarchy Today > Queen and public > Charities and patronages > Search results

And the Earl of Wessex, just because he was never one to constantly have his name in the papers does not mean that he is unnecessary. He supports 49 organizations, mostly youth related. Here is that link:
The Monarchy Today > Queen and public > Charities and patronages > Search results

Remember, they do have a young child and until recently, did try to have careers outside of the royal family. I think they are a true asset to the Family.
As for the Duke of York, he supports 127 organizations. Here is the link:
The Monarchy Today > Queen and public > Charities and patronages > Search results

It seems to me that all the royals support important causes that cater to their individual interests and that many people benefit from their patronage
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 06-29-2007, 02:21 PM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,735
I appreciate that Andrew "supports" 127 organisations, but he certainly does not come across as either most qualified to support British trade, or somebody who appears most committed to it. It is through sheer hard work over a sustained period of time that the Press have stopped picking on Anne. Andrew still has a long way to go - not helped when he is regularly photographed eihter playing golf or being on holiday!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 06-29-2007, 03:15 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
Well, I have to say that I cannot disagree with you about Prince Andrew! I, too, have wondered how a man who was a Navy Pilot has the credentials to be the figurehead for supporting British trade. Interestingly enough, Princess Anne is very busy with her organizations, a lot of them being equine related.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 06-29-2007, 07:44 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,731
Once he is King, I believe Charles will issue new letters patent limiting the HRH to the children of the Sovereign and the eldest child of the current heir to the throne. While I doubt Anne, Andrew and Edward will lose their royal rank, I think Beatrice and Eugenie will be required to relinquish it.

Harry will likely follow his uncle's lead and request his children not hold royal rank, but rather be styled as the children of a Duke. This will facilitate the notion of a downsized monarchy that is closer to a modern society.

It will be interesting to see what happens, but I do think the royal family needs to be limited in the future.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 06-29-2007, 08:59 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
I think it'd be very unpopular for Beatrice and Eugenie to be required to relinquish their titles on Charles's accession. Maybe encouraged to do so at the time of their marriage or something, but we don't have a precedent of discarding royals just because of a change of monarch, and I don't think it'd be a good one to start. It looks insensitive and churlish, and for what it actually matters, I don't think it'd be worth the bad publicity as well as, no doubt, the hurt it'd cause Prince Andrew.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 06-29-2007, 09:02 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
The Queen's children are all doing a good job, but Prince Charles is the one who should lead the team in the future as heir to the throne. But royals all have their own spealised areas and they are a team. I agree with Branchg that the BRF needs to limit its size after Prince Charles asecend the thorne. His own family is the core royal family but other royals can retain their titles to support the royal family as a whole.

Prince Andrew is doing a good job,but he is a fun-loving person and I am glad at least he can enjoy his life because I always find Prince Charles used to be too serious and too sad.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 06-29-2007, 09:13 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
Are we discussing children and grandchildren losing their HRH? I totally disagree with that, if we are. As grandchildren of the monarch, they should have the HRH to use, if they so desire. The issue here is how many of them the Monarchy should be supporting. The HRH is hereditary, it can't be stripped away. Even the Duke of Windsor was accorded to his right to that (even if the Duchess was not).
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 06-30-2007, 12:48 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 67
I don't see the point in cutting back the HRH titles. The Kents and the Glos are not going to pass their royal titles down and their title will die with them. I argee that they may need to cut them back in terms of doing royal duties, but I don't think the Kents do that much royal duty in the first place to make much difference. The Kents do a lot of personal work, but since they are not on the civil list there's not that much that needs to be change. The Glos are not even seen much so its not a big deal to leave them alone and just cut back of their work. But I don't see the need to get rid of their HRH. I also disagree with the Princesses of York losing their title. What difference does it make when they are not able to pass down their titles in the first place? I do agree that they should be made to represent the monarchy in charity work and such, but let them have the title. However I do agree with cutting back the civil list. When all is said and done the only new HRH titles will be made for William and Harry's children so the HRH will be cut back dramatically by then assuming the Will and Harry don't have a lot of children.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 06-30-2007, 07:50 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missyjojo88 View Post
I don't see the point in cutting back the HRH titles. The Kents and the Glos are not going to pass their royal titles down and their title will die with them. I argee that they may need to cut them back in terms of doing royal duties, but I don't think the Kents do that much royal duty in the first place to make much difference. The Kents do a lot of personal work, but since they are not on the civil list there's not that much that needs to be change.
The Kents are in their 60s and 70s so of course they are cutting back. They are, afterall, old age pensioners. The younger members of the Kent family are earning their own way.

Quote:
The Glos are not even seen much so its not a big deal to leave them alone and just cut back of their work.
The Gloucesters don't do a lot of work but are also into the old age pensioner category. Again the younger members of the Gloucester family are doing non-royal work to support themselves.

With both families the Queen has been supporting them for many years now since the changes to eligibility to the Civil List was made. Any income these people get effectively comes directly from her personal wealth and not from the government.

Quote:
But I don't see the need to get rid of their HRH. I

I totally agree here. Those that have the HRH from these families - The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent and Princess Alexandra - a total of 7 people have worked as royals throughout the normal span of their adult working life and are still doing so when many at their current ages have retired.

Quote:
also disagree with the Princesses of York losing their title.
I am not totally sure I agree here as it will depend on what they do.

If they are going into some form of paid work where the HRH is used to gain benefits for the company then I would think it was inappropriate to have it but if they do community type work where the HRH is not used to benefit a company then there is no problem e.g. if they were teachers there would be no problem but if they went into a company that used the HRH as an advertising tool to gain customers I think they should lose it. If they do full time royal duties (and as the Kents and Gloucesters cut back will William and Harry be able to do ALL the work currently being done by 7 people - the Kents and Gloucesters) I suspect they may be needed to do so then I don't see a problem with them keeping it.

Quote:
What difference does it make when they are not able to pass down their titles in the first place? I do agree that they should be made to represent the monarchy in charity work and such, but let them have the title.
I agree - they have grown up with the titles. They are still relatively close to the throne and who knows what the future may hold/

Quote:
However I do agree with cutting back the civil list.
Which of the following people would you remove from the Civil List?

HM The Queen
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.


As these are the only two recipients of the Civil List I would like to know who you would remove.

The Civil List is really to cover the costs of the Head of State so surely some payment must be made to the person who actually does the job. I don't know of any country that doesn't make a payment to the Head of State do you?

Quote:
When all is said and done the only new HRH titles will be made for William and Harry's children so the HRH will be cut back dramatically by then assuming the Will and Harry don't have a lot of children.
Assuming that William and Harry follow the lead of their father's family and have only one or two children each within 50 years there will only be about 8 with the HRH - William's two children plus the eldest son of his eldest son, Harry plus 2 and Beatrice and Eugenie. I am assuming no changes to the 1917 Letters Patent in this count and, of course assuming that William has one son at least and that that son has married and had a son to come up with this number. There are many variables to this hypothetical scenario but this is realistic IMHO.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 06-30-2007, 09:05 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 67
Since the question was about the changes made after the Queen dies, I'm not saying to stop giving money to the Queen or any head of states. What I meant is that since there are a list of royals that get money from the civil purse, may be they might cut back on that. Of course the ones doing royal duties should get paid for their work, but I gather that they might come up with a way to cut back on those on the list who are getting paid. For example the Glos and Princess Alexander will most likely step back from royal duties once Charles come to the throne. They will head into the directions of the Kents who don't get money from the civil purse. That's what I meant by cutting back on the civil purse. And if the Princesses of York are not willing to do their duty as princesses they should just not get money from the head of states, but still allow to keep their royal titles. But I just don't think they should strip anyone of their titles.
__________________

__________________
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
Prince Albert, Duke of York and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon - 1923 Mandy Historical Royal Weddings 33 06-25-2014 01:39 PM
Future of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 882 06-22-2014 07:19 PM
The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne Ellie2 British Royals 147 06-15-2013 07:14 PM
Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip's Visit to the Netherlands; February 5, 2007 Empress Dutch Royals 54 02-08-2007 02:04 AM
Relationship between King Juan Carlos and Queen Elizabeth Conde Valleverde King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia 4 11-12-2004 08:54 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince gabriel prince laurent prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess elisabeth princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:29 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]