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
 
  #101  
Old 06-30-2007, 09:32 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missyjojo88 View Post
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.
There are TWO people who get money from the civil purse - the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh.

Quote:
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.
But only TWO people are getting paid by the government NOW.

All the rest are paid by the Queen - she repays any money given to them by the government.

What happens is this - the government makes a payment of x pounds to various members of the royal family - effectively paying them a salary to do royal duties but... the Queen then repays that money to the government except for the money received by herself and her consort.

Quote:
For example the Glos and Princess Alexander will most likely step back from royal duties once Charles come to the throne.
Why - there will still be a need for them to work if they want to and when Charles comes to the throne there will be at least one less royal to do the work currently being done. As Alexandra is already in her 70s she is naturally cutting back and will continue to do so as age takes it toll.

Quote:
They will head into the directions of the Kents who don't get money from the civil purse.
The Kents, just like the Gloucesters get paid by the Queen not the government anymore.

The Duke still does many duties. It is his wife that doesn't.

Prince Michael gets his income from consultative work that he does not from the Queen but that is because he doesn't do that many royal duties anyway.

Quote:
That's what I meant by cutting back on the civil purse.

I think you need to understand one thing - and I have already said it in this post and the previous one - only TWO people get anything from the civil list now so cutting it back isn't a real option.


Quote:
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.
They were never going to get any money from the government. If the Queen chooses to give them money from her personal wealth then she may do so but I suspect that if they don't do royal duties full time they will have to get themselves jobs that pay them enough to live, just like their cousins Peter and Zara - Peter works for a company and Zara is being sponsored to train full time for the Olympics - in time she will probably go into coaching in that area full time and I suspect that her younger cousins may do the same thing.

Too bad about all the charities and places that want to have a royal connection - in time there won't be enough royals working full time at being royal to actually do all the work in Britian, let alone around the world.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 06-30-2007, 10:38 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Well, part of the problem is that nowadays the royals don't have the pulling power that they did because for many charities, especially those which are looking for participation from young people, sports and media celebrities are more effective than minor royals. When the Kents and Gloucesters were younger, there weren't so many other options - if a charity wanted a real boost, it had to have a royal patron or president. These days that's somewhat less important, so the lack of royals might not be as much of a problem as it was.

When George VI first came to the throne the royal family was also rather small - Princess Mary was married to a commoner, the Duke of Windsor was gone (and George VI knew he was gone for ever, even if he didn't), and the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent didn't have children old enough to carry out duties. Then the Duke of Kent died and the Duke of Gloucester went off to Australia for a while. Apart from the King and Queen and Queen Mary, there were just a few assorted elderly royals like Princess Marie Louise to do charity work. The abundance of royals in the 1970s and 1980s was part of a cycle, not so much a normal state of affairs.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 06-30-2007, 11:10 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
I agree that we are getting ready to look at a bit of scaled back monarchy--but the Duke of York is not exactly old, and the Earl and Countess of Wessex will no doubt soon be taking on more royal duties. I think they'll be around a while. They've been raised to understand the importance of doing such work, and I believe they will instill that within their daughters as well. We cannot determine what the Princesses of York will do, but my guess would be that once they are married they will continue in the tradition of being patrons. After all, why have a grandmother who was Queen and an Uncle who is King if you're not going to be involved? Just because they aren't quite yet serious does not mean they will be derelict in their future duties (examples being both Charles and Andrew!). And, let's not write off the Kents and Gloucesters just yet. Nor, the Phillips children. As they mature they may well continue the model of service their mother has demonstrated for them.
Regardless of all of that--whether one wants to perform a service for the crown and become a patron of something is fine, and if they want to get paid that is fine as well--but if they don't want to be involved in that way thats' fine, too. But, the HRH is hereditary and should not be taken away if they choose to live a more private life.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 06-30-2007, 11:42 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: dallas, United States
Posts: 24
That country of "Great Britan" is belongst to the residents, and no one should take title of Queen, except for her current self and then to cautiously approach the topic, her daughter. It oughta be the Queens' kids' according to their age, and after them, then their kids, redundancy fastly approaching....a monarchy title is seemingly by bloodline then given title, not married in and make new. Commonwealth is important, heritage is equally recognized and given strength through unity in peace and decisions are eventually made regaurding topic for everyones best intrest. 'nuff typed`
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 06-30-2007, 11:45 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Well in the younger generation there are only four royals: William, Harry, Beatrice, and Eugenie. Beatrice and Eugenie can't pass down their royal title to their children so that leaves us with William and Harry as the only ones that can pass down their royal title to the next generation. Of the present royals outside the Queen's immediate family I think the Gloucesters are the youngest and they're not that young any more. Or it may be Princess Michael but she is no spring chicken either.

I think the current situation of excess royals will naturally become less severe over time.
__________________
"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
  #106  
Old 03-22-2008, 12:02 AM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Yes, digging up another one from the past...

All this talk of making the RF smaller seems quite silly to me. Of course all that Windsor/York/Kent/Philips mob are part of the Royal Family. What they should do is draw a distinction between the Royal (extended) Family, and the Royal (nuclear) House.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 03-22-2008, 12:39 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
I'm not sure that most people would understand that sort of distinction. Some people think that a person has to have an HM or HRH in order to be royal, and some people think that all the Queen's relatives are royal whether they do royal duties or not. Most of my friends and relations in the UK still think the Gloucesters and Kents get Civil List income - somewhere along the line, the PR coming out of Buckingham Palace isn't as clear as it could be.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 03-22-2008, 04:22 AM
Claire's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 841
There is a lot of misunderstanding regarding the royals andb their money.
But I have to say that change is unaviodable. Charles likes to be seen as a man of the people and of change so I expect him to be at the fore, along with his cronies.
But yes, all of this is very speculative. We live in a very unstable world at the moment, people perceptions change with the morning headlines and one large bomb later, we might have the Kents on the throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 03-22-2008, 05:06 PM
KingCharles's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 31
I think the survival of the British Monarchy is set in stone regardless of adaptation to modern times or sticking to old traditions. The people proved a monarchy to be important when the Interregnum ended (Oliver Cromwell in power as Lord Protector instead of a King/Queen).
I, do think that the monarchy does need to establish a common ground with the general public. The fact that there is talk about survival is rather worrying as it kind of gives me the impression that a monarchy is no longer relevant. In some respects it isn't, but in others it is. I think the survival, politically speaking, because the monarch is a politician regardless of what conventions and parliament acts state. I know that in a constitutional monarchy, the King/Queen is meant to be politically neutral. This is impossible as a monarchy are hereditary political leaders. Before you think I am just rambling, there is some thought behind it. To survive the monarchy needs to have more political power. I know this will not happen because the power struggle between parliament and the monarchy has been greatly fought, and there is alot of history that goes with it, but that in my opinion is the only way they are going to seem ever more relevant in the coming decades. The majority of people believe that the monarchy do nothing, live in nice palaces and castles, and take the tax-payers money. I think a greater education about the monarchy is needed and as to why they are important, or not important, whatever the case may be to give people the real facts. I think that a monarch should either have power and be able to use it, or cut all the red tape and just say, "you're a ceremonial figurehead, end of story."
I think it's pointless in our British Monarchy for the Queen to have power to dissolve parliament as she pleases, send the armed forces to war, declare peace, grant pardons, choose her own Prime Minister, and still having to get approval from the politicians or the Prime Minister to do so. That is not real power so why mask it as though it is?

I think for true survival, there has to be a greater appeal rather a historical gate way to the past. We know our history, we know what happened and why things are the way they are today in the political sense, but if they monarchy are just acting as leaders or a national focus point, does anyone think they will survive?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 12-19-2008, 12:53 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
I'm bumping this thread because I'm getting a bit alarmed at what I'm reading around the British forum.

Far as I can gather, there are a few members here who are still so disgusted with Charles and Camilla for having an affair while married/hurting Diana/getting married that they're going to become republicans at the end of this reign. There are also some (and this seems, worryingly, to be an increasing number) who see Charles as the last monarch in the Windsor tradition and are writing William off as a self-absorbed spoiled rich kid, and are going to become republicans at the end of Charles's reign. Many of our posters from Canada and Australia are ready to cut loose from the monarchy at the end of the present reign.

Erm - do we have any members here who see themselves as monarchists in the long term? Or are we really looking at a severe erosion of support for the monarchy which will play itself out in two acts and leave William as an irrelevant and unpopular king?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 12-19-2008, 02:36 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Monterey, United States
Posts: 2,325
Im a Monarchist long term Britian without a Royal Family Never!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 12-20-2008, 12:12 AM
ada's Avatar
ada ada is online now
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: pomona, Australia
Posts: 540
Although respect Camilla as Prince CHarles wife, and she's doing a really good job supporting him, I am not looking forward to seeing her crowned in Westminster Abbey
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 12-20-2008, 12:50 AM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,340
Yes ada, I agree. The choice of the Prince of Wales to marry his long time mistress has completely put me off the idea of him being King. With any luck QEII will live a very long time, and William with any luck will get a speech coach. He needs someone to held him with what will be a major portion of his role, which he's dead awful with (public speaking).
Elspeth, at the risk of being shouted at, on the occasion of Prince Charles' 60th birthday a poll commissioned re:Camilla being Queen vs Princess Consort had a 17% approval of the concept of Camilla being Queen. It's not just a few people. On this board, there is a very vocal Camilla Claque. That is not neccessarily a reflection of the rest of the population, where quite a few of us either get deleted or banned. Historically speaking, when a CP or monarch marries his mistress it is always poorly received...think Anne Boleyn.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 12-20-2008, 12:54 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by ada View Post
Although respect Camilla as Prince CHarles wife, and she's doing a really good job supporting him, I am not looking forward to seeing her crowned in Westminster Abbey
I on the other hand have already told by boss that when the present Queen passes I am instantly going on Long Service Leave to fly to London to pay my respects (I keep $5000 in the bank at all times for air fare and a night or two's accommodation!!) and that I will be also going back for the Coronation of Charles and his lovely Consort Camilla. I do hope to see her crowned as she rightly should be being his wife.

As a woman who has taken the name of my husband on marriage, I think that to deny her the title that goes with being the wife of the King means denying the right of ALL women to take the title, style and rank of their husband. Unless the legislation did that I would be totally opposed and that would make be a complete republican (which as far as Australia goes I am now due to a range of factors but most particularly that antics of the younger royals who seem to have no sense of being royal in my opinion - whether that is a fact or simply an impression I have I obviously don't know but they have succeeded in making me believe that Australia would be better off without having any ties to any of them).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 12-20-2008, 01:02 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Yes ada, I agree. The choice of the Prince of Wales to marry his long time mistress has completely put me off the idea of him being King. With any luck QEII will live a very long time, and William with any luck will get a speech coach. He needs someone to held him with what will be a major portion of his role, which he's dead awful with (public speaking).
Elspeth, at the risk of being shouted at, on the occasion of Prince Charles' 60th birthday a poll commissioned re:Camilla being Queen vs Princess Consort had a 17% approval of the concept of Camilla being Queen. It's not just a few people. On this board, there is a very vocal Camilla Claque. That is not neccessarily a reflection of the rest of the population, where quite a few of us either get deleted or banned. Historically speaking, when a CP or monarch marries his mistress it is always poorly received...think Anne Boleyn.
So, to answer my question, does this mean you're becoming a republican when the Queen dies?

As far as people who don't support Camilla being deleted or banned for it, that's nonsense.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 12-20-2008, 01:44 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,186
I see myself as a long-term monarchist. One reason for this is that the monarchy is one institution that differentiates Canada from the USA. I'm not anti-American, but I do think that it's important for neighbouring countries to keep their distinctions along with having friendly relations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I'm bumping this thread because I'm getting a bit alarmed at what I'm reading around the British forum.

Far as I can gather, there are a few members here who are still so disgusted with Charles and Camilla for having an affair while married/hurting Diana/getting married that they're going to become republicans at the end of this reign. There are also some (and this seems, worryingly, to be an increasing number) who see Charles as the last monarch in the Windsor tradition and are writing William off as a self-absorbed spoiled rich kid, and are going to become republicans at the end of Charles's reign. Many of our posters from Canada and Australia are ready to cut loose from the monarchy at the end of the present reign.

Erm - do we have any members here who see themselves as monarchists in the long term? Or are we really looking at a severe erosion of support for the monarchy which will play itself out in two acts and leave William as an irrelevant and unpopular king?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 12-20-2008, 01:47 AM
sirhon11234's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 2,464
Well I'm a democrat but for Great Britain I am a monarchist. I'm not thrilled about the idea of Camilla becoming Queen but I can stomach it.
I sometimes get a sense that some people might only want Charles to be King just to see Camilla crowned.
I don't have high expectations for Charles' reign, his mother has done a tremendous job I wonder if he can live up to that.
__________________
"I think the biggest disease the world suffers from in this day and age is the disease of people feeling unloved."
Diana, the Princess of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 12-20-2008, 01:53 AM
kimebear's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Albany, United States
Posts: 1,382
The only time I can see the dissolution of a monarchy is if it has outlived it's usefulness. Regarding the British monarchs, as long as they continue to work for the UK and represent their country's best interests, there is no reason for the monarchy to end, regardless of who the monarchs are.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 12-20-2008, 02:26 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,186
Yes, and it's the same for the countries in the Commonwealth. Even though the Queen isn't here all the time, she's still our Head of State and is represented by the Governor General in Ottawa. This is a huge country up here, and I think that the Crown is one institution that unites us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kimebear View Post
The only time I can see the dissolution of a monarchy is if it has outlived it's usefulness. Regarding the British monarchs, as long as they continue to work for the UK and represent their country's best interests, there is no reason for the monarchy to end, regardless of who the monarchs are.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 12-20-2008, 05:18 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
Yes, and it's the same for the countries in the Commonwealth. Even though the Queen isn't here all the time, she's still our Head of State and is represented by the Governor General in Ottawa.
I'm it total agreement with you kimibear and mermaid.

I think the world is a scarey place, and getting grimmer by the minute and in times like these we can draw on a common history to look objectively at the future. The BRF, the House of Winsor, provides that to millions of people around the world. Strangely enough the death of the Queen and the coronation of Charles as King merely reinforces the fact that life goes on and we will survive, as will the monarchy.

Picture this: Prince Charles married his lover. Woe is we, shame and scandal in the family! I don't like his new wife so when the QEII dies I am going to become a Republican. So there!

OK. What does that mean? What is a republican? For that matter, what is a republic? I guess we mean a constitutional one, don't?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipeadia
A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican; should the judicial review be maximized.
Woe is we indeed! More elections, mega more elections and what is worse . . . . . more politicians! If the BRF is gone, we, like the mother country, are going to have to elect a President!

Right then, let's have a trawl through the "qualified" candidates, ousted politicians all. But wait, what about those retired senior not-very-civil civil servants? OK toss them is the pot and stir for 3 - 4 months and select "The Candidates". Politically backed and politically motovated each and every one. But who will pay for their campaigns you ask, we will of course, and the elections as well. And then, wallah . . . . . El Presidente!

I don't know about you but to me it is the stuff of which nightmares are made.

I don't have to worry about who is "finessing" the Queen, although I would love to be a fly on the wall if anyone was stupid enough to try. She swore an oath to do the best she could for her subjects. She has, and that includes giving us an heir of substance. He is a Prince, born to be King, not a candidate for sainthood, and therein lies the difference!
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
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 882 06-22-2014 07:19 PM
Prince Albert, Duke of York and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon - 1923 Mandy Historical Royal Weddings 31 02-14-2014 05:14 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 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




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jewellery jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games ottoman poland pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:39 PM.

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]