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
 
  #2221  
Old 11-10-2015, 08:45 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,380
I think one of the first things Charles should address is the CC and this bizarre running tally of engagement numbers.

Royal 'A' can shake hands all day and rack up 10 engagements in a day. Royal 'B' can attend a day long conference and get credit for one engagement.

Under the current way of doing things Royal A has worked 10x more that Royal B.

So I think the whole way royals are evaluated needs to be recalibrated. Maybe Charles can look at this rather than let the tabloids decide who is the 'harder' worker
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2222  
Old 11-10-2015, 08:51 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Why change something that has been around for over 200 years?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2223  
Old 11-10-2015, 08:53 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
I think one of the first things Charles should address is the CC and this bizarre running tally of engagement numbers.

Royal 'A' can shake hands all day and rack up 10 engagements in a day. Royal 'B' can attend a day long conference and get credit for one engagement.

Under the current way of doing things Royal A has worked 10x more that Royal B.

So I think the whole way royals are evaluated needs to be recalibrated. Maybe Charles can look at this rather than let the tabloids decide who is the 'harder' worker
The BRF do not count the number of engagements so it is nothing to do with them. And as you know it doesn't relate to all the work they do.

ITs royal watchers that do it and pay attention to it.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #2224  
Old 11-10-2015, 08:56 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
I think one of the first things Charles should address is the CC and this bizarre running tally of engagement numbers.

Royal 'A' can shake hands all day and rack up 10 engagements in a day. Royal 'B' can attend a day long conference and get credit for one engagement.

Under the current way of doing things Royal A has worked 10x more that Royal B.

So I think the whole way royals are evaluated needs to be recalibrated. Maybe Charles can look at this rather than let the tabloids decide who is the 'harder' worker

That's an excellent idea. Just because things have always been one way doesn't mean they can't change. What you suggest seems a lot better.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #2225  
Old 11-10-2015, 08:57 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,187
^ I don't think too many members of the BRF rack up ten engagements a day, ever. And surely if a Royal does a certain amount of homework and can get round to five different charitable organisations a day (as Princess Anne does, sometimes) that's worth something? Apart from the journeys between engagements there's more information to absorb, more people to meet and greet and discuss things with than would surely happen at a conference. Often the Royal who appears at a conference is only there to observe and take notes anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #2226  
Old 11-10-2015, 09:00 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: ***, Sweden
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Camilla View Post
Why change something that has been around for over 200 years?
Not changing using the CC, it's a good system. But changing or putting up a standardized way of recording it.
Reply With Quote
  #2227  
Old 11-10-2015, 09:47 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by hernameispekka View Post
Not changing using the CC, it's a good system. But changing or putting up a standardized way of recording it.
It is standardised. It records individual events undertaken by the BRF. If they are doing it on behalf of a patronage or regiment it says so; it says in general terms what they did or why they were there.

There is no need to change it. What needs to change is the assumption that it is in some way a competition (and it isn't) and that this is all they do.

The CC isn't at fault - its how people choose to interpret it

It is IMO the most comprehensive record of public engagement by any RF
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #2228  
Old 11-10-2015, 10:21 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,191
I started tracking the CC for my own enjoyment. I never intended on making my hobby public but did so after a comment I made here was taken up and so I put up the first weekly list which was simply in line of succession order. Then people asked for the 'league table' so that was included and then bit by bit other suggestions were made for us to enjoy here.


I am actually considering not doing it publicly next year but only to those who ask via a PM and then will set up an email system but that is for a later date to discuss.


The BRF don't keep any sort of official tally. That was first done by Mr O'Donovan in the early 80s and he continues to do it to this day. Other media sources have also started to do their own counts - which are counted I don't know how as they can be way off from mine and Mr O'Donovan's.


Other boards have taken to counting events not listed in the CC as well to pad the counts for some royals whom they don't think are getting a fair deal from HM who decides what goes into the CC, which is simply a daily record of the official doings of the BRF.
Reply With Quote
  #2229  
Old 11-10-2015, 11:42 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 2,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
It is standardised. It records individual events undertaken by the BRF. If they are doing it on behalf of a patronage or regiment it says so; it says in general terms what they did or why they were there.

There is no need to change it. What needs to change is the assumption that it is in some way a competition (and it isn't) and that this is all they do.

The CC isn't at fault - its how people choose to interpret it

It is IMO the most comprehensive record of public engagement by any RF
Thank you cepe for pointing out this important fact. For years I believed that the CC "counted" engagements as well, until it was mentioned to me that the CC merely shares information about the activities of the various members.

The press and public have created this "competition." However I'm not surprised by stories suggesting that the DoE and Princess Royal would compare their tallies when Mr. O'Donovan's annual report would come out. I can see them being a very competitive pair.
Reply With Quote
  #2230  
Old 11-11-2015, 02:23 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
Regarding the BRF being slimmed down under Charles, is there actual proof that other European royal families have downsized, ot is it just perceived this way because of the number of monarchs who have abdicated, shifting the focus to the new nuclear family, while the number of HRHs (or equivalent) in these families still exists.
There is absolutely no proof of this.

In Sweden the royal family is actually expanding. It's a small family to begin with because the King only had sisters, none of whom has succession rights because of their marriages (3 lost their royal status because of unequal marriages, and the fourth converted to Catholicism). However, by making Madeleine's children royals the King has expanded the family instead of allowing it to remain small.

In Norway only those in the direct line of succession and their spouses are styled as HRHs, other family members being HHs. This gives it an appearance of downsizing that isn't accurate - the King's sisters went from being HRHs to HHs upon their marriages, as did his daughter. The only difference between them and Severre Magnus (asides from gender) is that the king decided that rather than lowering Severre Magnus' status upon his marriage he would be an HH from birth. Much like in Sweden, the king only has sisters, not brothers, so the family has long been naturally small. If any decision has been made to restrict future royal titles (i.e. if Severre Magnus' children won't be royals) then really that's just maintaining what has been the status quo in Norway since the dissolution of the union with Sweden - since the reign of Haakon VII, the Norwegian royal family has always been limited to the direct line as Haakon only had one child, and both Olav V and Harald V only had one son.

In Spain there has been a focus on the King and his descendants since the restoration in 1975. An argument could be made that the family has been downsized by removing the King's sisters from the Royal Family, but given as the King's aunts weren't a part of the Royal Family during his father's reigns it could also be considered to be maintaining the status quo.

The children of the younger son of the Queen of Denmark bear the style HH instead of HRH. However, if you go back a couple generations and look at the children of her paternal uncle, Hereditary Prince Knud (who was the heir presumptive until the succession laws were changed), they were also born HHs.

In Belgium the royal family is focused on the King and his children, but the King's parents, siblings, nieces and nephews, and aunts are all still a part of the royal family with HRHs. The King doesn't have any male-line paternal cousins.

There is something that can be considered downsizing in the Netherlands, as the King's nieces and nephews don't have royal titles at all, but... Willem-Alexander is the first monarch of the Netherlands since Wilhelmina to have a brother at all, and the first since William II to have a brother who in turn had children. So again, it's not so much downsizing and taking measures to maintain what has become the status quo.

In Luxembourg there is a large royal family who all bear the style HRH. Children born to the Grand Duke or Hereditary Grand Duke are all "of Luxembourg" while other male-line descendants of Grand Duke Adolphe are "of Nassau" - not a new trend.

In Monaco there has been a history of a smaller royal family that owes its size purely to the family not typically having too many children and many of those children not being sons. The current Prince only has sisters. Rainier III had only one sibling, a sister, and his mother was the only acknowledged child of her father. Her father, Louis II, was the only child of his father, who was the only child of his father... it's been a small family for a long time.

In Liechtenstein, the family is actually huge, as all male-line dynastic descendants of the first Prince of Liechtenstein are actually styled as Prince(ss) of Liechtenstein, and they're all HSH. The focus on the monarch and his family isn't new for a reason.

Now, in Britain, the royal family is probably the largest it's been since the LPs were issued in 1917. You have the monarch, her children, some of her grandchildren, some of her great-grandchildren, and some of her cousins. It's large because George V had a number of sons who in turn had children combined with the family being long lived. This isn't likely to continue to be the trend - none of the Queen's cousins can pass on royal titles to their children, her children are likely done having children and have passed it on as much as they're likely to - to 4 grandchildren, as the Wessexes don't really count. As for those 4 grandchildren, only 1 of them at this time can pass on royal titles, William, and only 1 other one will likely be able to in the future, Harry. The family is very likely to downsize naturally in the coming years as the rate of expansion isn't going to match the rate of contraction.
Reply With Quote
  #2231  
Old 11-11-2015, 02:33 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 2,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I started tracking the CC for my own enjoyment. I never intended on making my hobby public but did so after a comment I made here was taken up and so I put up the first weekly list which was simply in line of succession order. Then people asked for the 'league table' so that was included and then bit by bit other suggestions were made for us to enjoy here.


I am actually considering not doing it publicly next year but only to those who ask via a PM and then will set up an email system but that is for a later date to discuss.


The BRF don't keep any sort of official tally. That was first done by Mr O'Donovan in the early 80s and he continues to do it to this day. Other media sources have also started to do their own counts - which are counted I don't know how as they can be way off from mine and Mr O'Donovan's.


Other boards have taken to counting events not listed in the CC as well to pad the counts for some royals whom they don't think are getting a fair deal from HM who decides what goes into the CC, which is simply a daily record of the official doings of the BRF.
I wonder if someone in the press or the general public will take up Mr. O'Donovan's role once he is no longer able to tally the BRF engagements on an annual basis.
Reply With Quote
  #2232  
Old 11-12-2015, 05:22 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
The BRF do not count the number of engagements so it is nothing to do with them.

ITs royal watchers that do it and pay attention to it.
In the Prince of Wales annual review his office releases the number of engagements, letters, etc.

According to an old post, Andrew also posts/ed his numbers on his website.

IMO, some people believe their 'favorite' does secret engagements that are not listed so they find the CC unacceptable.

Time and time again, it has been revealed that numerous members of the BRF have events, meeting that are not listed in the CC.

Is watching a ballet or a sporting event for two to three hours more important that writing and delivering a ten minute speech in a foreign language followed by meeting 75 people for an hour?

Which should count more?

If people are not satisfied with how things are done they can always create their own CC.

I highly suspect that after a few months they will abandon it when they discover they are not getting the results they wanted.

If people are really that interested in how much ABC royal worked in comparison to XYZ royal, write to their offices and ask for copies of their calendar.

Or get a job for a year at one royal's office, then switch to another and another and another.

I would be interested in knowing if their favorite was still their favorite after a year of working for their favorite.
Reply With Quote
  #2233  
Old 11-12-2015, 06:30 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
There is absolutely no proof of this.

In Sweden the royal family is actually expanding. It's a small family to begin with because the King only had sisters, none of whom has succession rights because of their marriages (3 lost their royal status because of unequal marriages, and the fourth converted to Catholicism). However, by making Madeleine's children royals the King has expanded the family instead of allowing it to remain small.

In Norway only those in the direct line of succession and their spouses are styled as HRHs, other family members being HHs. This gives it an appearance of downsizing that isn't accurate - the King's sisters went from being HRHs to HHs upon their marriages, as did his daughter. The only difference between them and Severre Magnus (asides from gender) is that the king decided that rather than lowering Severre Magnus' status upon his marriage he would be an HH from birth. Much like in Sweden, the king only has sisters, not brothers, so the family has long been naturally small. If any decision has been made to restrict future royal titles (i.e. if Severre Magnus' children won't be royals) then really that's just maintaining what has been the status quo in Norway since the dissolution of the union with Sweden - since the reign of Haakon VII, the Norwegian royal family has always been limited to the direct line as Haakon only had one child, and both Olav V and Harald V only had one son.

In Spain there has been a focus on the King and his descendants since the restoration in 1975. An argument could be made that the family has been downsized by removing the King's sisters from the Royal Family, but given as the King's aunts weren't a part of the Royal Family during his father's reigns it could also be considered to be maintaining the status quo.

The children of the younger son of the Queen of Denmark bear the style HH instead of HRH. However, if you go back a couple generations and look at the children of her paternal uncle, Hereditary Prince Knud (who was the heir presumptive until the succession laws were changed), they were also born HHs.

In Belgium the royal family is focused on the King and his children, but the King's parents, siblings, nieces and nephews, and aunts are all still a part of the royal family with HRHs. The King doesn't have any male-line paternal cousins.

There is something that can be considered downsizing in the Netherlands, as the King's nieces and nephews don't have royal titles at all, but... Willem-Alexander is the first monarch of the Netherlands since Wilhelmina to have a brother at all, and the first since William II to have a brother who in turn had children. So again, it's not so much downsizing and taking measures to maintain what has become the status quo.

In Luxembourg there is a large royal family who all bear the style HRH. Children born to the Grand Duke or Hereditary Grand Duke are all "of Luxembourg" while other male-line descendants of Grand Duke Adolphe are "of Nassau" - not a new trend.

In Monaco there has been a history of a smaller royal family that owes its size purely to the family not typically having too many children and many of those children not being sons. The current Prince only has sisters. Rainier III had only one sibling, a sister, and his mother was the only acknowledged child of her father. Her father, Louis II, was the only child of his father, who was the only child of his father... it's been a small family for a long time.

In Liechtenstein, the family is actually huge, as all male-line dynastic descendants of the first Prince of Liechtenstein are actually styled as Prince(ss) of Liechtenstein, and they're all HSH. The focus on the monarch and his family isn't new for a reason.

Now, in Britain, the royal family is probably the largest it's been since the LPs were issued in 1917. You have the monarch, her children, some of her grandchildren, some of her great-grandchildren, and some of her cousins. It's large because George V had a number of sons who in turn had children combined with the family being long lived. This isn't likely to continue to be the trend - none of the Queen's cousins can pass on royal titles to their children, her children are likely done having children and have passed it on as much as they're likely to - to 4 grandchildren, as the Wessexes don't really count. As for those 4 grandchildren, only 1 of them at this time can pass on royal titles, William, and only 1 other one will likely be able to in the future, Harry. The family is very likely to downsize naturally in the coming years as the rate of expansion isn't going to match the rate of contraction.

Thanks for posting this, very interesting to read and puts all the RFs in perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #2234  
Old 11-12-2015, 10:20 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
Regarding the BRF being slimmed down under Charles, is there actual proof that other European royal families have downsized, ot is it just perceived this way because of the number of monarchs who have abdicated, shifting the focus to the new nuclear family, while the number of HRHs (or equivalent) in these families still exists.
The trend may be exaggerated, but Spain (1987), Luxembourg (1995), and the Netherlands (2002) have enacted restrictions on royal and grand ducal titles (Luxembourg restricted the title Prince(ss) of Luxembourg but not Prince(ss) of Nassau).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
In Sweden the royal family is actually expanding. It's a small family to begin with because the King only had sisters, none of whom has succession rights because of their marriages (3 lost their royal status because of unequal marriages, and the fourth converted to Catholicism).
The sisters never had any succession rights because Sweden followed Salic law, but the three were deprived of their membership in the Royal House.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
In Norway only those in the direct line of succession and their spouses are styled as HRHs, other family members being HHs. This gives it an appearance of downsizing that isn't accurate - the King's sisters went from being HRHs to HHs upon their marriages, as did his daughter.
In Norway, Princess Astrid, Princess Märtha Louise, and Prince Sverre Magnus actually have no style whatsoever. The policy of the royal house is to only use the style Highness for overseas engagements. (As a result, the style HH appears in the English version of the royal house's website, but not the Norwegian version.) Unlike her aunts, Princess Märtha Louise did not lose her HRH upon her marriage, as she had already lost it three months previous on 1 February 2002 as a consequence of starting a business.
Reply With Quote
  #2235  
Old 12-27-2015, 02:15 AM
Sweden's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
Regarding the BRF being slimmed down under Charles, is there actual proof that other European royal families have downsized, ot is it just perceived this way because of the number of monarchs who have abdicated, shifting the focus to the new nuclear family, while the number of HRHs (or equivalent) in these families still exists.

I was thinking about when and if Charles becomes King, e whole family tree would shift up, only seeing (mostly) Charles and down.
Reply With Quote
  #2236  
Old 12-27-2015, 06:06 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweden View Post
I was thinking about when and if Charles becomes King, e whole family tree would shift up, only seeing (mostly) Charles and down.


I agree. The phrase "a slimmed down" royal family/monarchy is something I think was made up by the media and doesn't really make sense anyway.

Natural progression will result in a varying number of members of the royal family from one generation to the next - it is anyones guess whether William and Catherine (and eventually Harry) have a large family or not.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #2237  
Old 01-22-2016, 11:51 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 390
I think a possible solution to the perceived large size of the BRF would be to allow only working royals to have an HRH. This would allow the York girls and also Prince and Princess Michael, to become private citizens as threre is little need for them to continue being prince/sses. This would also allow royals to retire back into private life, as the Duchess of Kent has done, although she was unable to officially drop her titles.
Reply With Quote
  #2238  
Old 01-22-2016, 12:59 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,187
Beatrice and Eugenie could, if they wanted, drop their styling as Princesses at any time, just as Princess Patsy Connaught dropped hers on her marriage in 1919. Presumably, all they'd have to do would be to tell their grandmother, (and their father, of course.)
Reply With Quote
  #2239  
Old 01-22-2016, 02:13 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Beatrice and Eugenie could, if they wanted, drop their styling as Princesses at any time, just as Princess Patsy Connaught dropped hers on her marriage in 1919. Presumably, all they'd have to do would be to tell their grandmother, (and their father, of course.)

The problem with that is, they could "drop" the titles physically yet they would still have them.
Patricia was granted a Royal Warrant to be known as Lady Patricia Ramsay, and her place in line of succession was altered.

I'm pretty sure several pieces of legislation would have to be re-written and new legislation written in terms of where the girls "stand".

What would be better for everyone, is if the girls were given a defined role, the press were informed, this is how it was going be from now on and that was that.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #2240  
Old 01-22-2016, 07:22 PM
padams2359's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 524
With their father footing their bills, and his insistence of their status, it is unlikely they will request a change. He who has the gold.....
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british, camilla, charles iii, charles of wales, coronation, crown jewels, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, queen camilla, titles, william v


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
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 309 10-31-2016 06:54 PM
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 392 10-16-2016 10:14 AM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 05:06 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grahamm grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdulah ii king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament photo picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess eugenie eveningwear princess ingrid alexandra princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania revolution royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


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

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- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:31 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises