The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2581  
Old 06-29-2016, 10:10 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 14,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
With Queen Elizabeth II's reign, the Royal Maundy service is held in a different church every year. Do you think this will remain the same under King Charles III?
Yes, i believe Charles and Camilla will continue conducting this service in different churches as well. First service will likely be at Westminster Abbey.
__________________

__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
  #2582  
Old 06-29-2016, 10:13 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 3,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Yes, i believe Charles and Camilla will continue conducting this service in different churches as well. First service will likely be at Westminster Abbey.
Is there a symbolic reason for King Charles III to have the first Royal Maundy service at Westminster Abbey?
__________________

  #2583  
Old 06-29-2016, 11:46 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 14,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
Is there a symbolic reason for King Charles III to have the first Royal Maundy service at Westminster Abbey?
I think it will be held there first due it's the place where the King will be crowned.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
  #2584  
Old 06-30-2016, 06:12 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,149
The Monarchy under Charles

For the Queen's coronation they had to shut down Westminster Abbey to build the seating out for the coronation. Depending on the date of the coronation, it could be closed.

I would think that they would just go to whatever church is on the schedule. The church for 2017 is probably already known to the people in the know. If Queen died a month before, are they going to switch it?

Apparently the Queen has requested that it isn't held in London more than once every ten years. The last time it was held at Westminster Abbey was famously right before the Royal Wedding. So it isn't likely for London until 2021.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
  #2585  
Old 06-30-2016, 08:48 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by WreathOfLaurels View Post
I was always under the impression that Charles owned Highfrove and birkhall outright along with some property in Transylvania and other places - part of the fuss over highgrove was that is was in lieu of somewhere else in Kent (turns out it was cause it was closer to Camilla) and that he inherited birkhall from his grandmother as personal property. ?
As you have clearly demonstrated, perception based on incorrect information can be quite dangerous .
  #2586  
Old 10-23-2016, 08:42 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 7,161
Nothing really new. It says the Queen has given de-facto day to day control of the Royal Family to Charles.

Prince Charles prepares to transition to be king | Express Comment | Comment | Daily Express
  #2587  
Old 10-23-2016, 08:50 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 8,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Nothing really new. It says the Queen has given de-facto day to day control of the Royal Family to Charles.

Prince Charles prepares to transition to be king | Express Comment | Comment | Daily Express
Caption under the first picture: "Prince Charles, Duke of Wales" ....

  #2588  
Old 10-23-2016, 09:00 AM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 5,570
Magnificent seven? Who is that source and when was the letter sent? Tragic journalism.
__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway
  #2589  
Old 10-23-2016, 09:03 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 14,131
Charles and his family should be the main ones we see working within the firm.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
  #2590  
Old 10-23-2016, 09:04 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,149
Technically there was only six on the balcony since the River Parade took out Philip.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
  #2591  
Old 10-23-2016, 10:13 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 8,159
We see this focus on the core royal family in all monarchies. Cousins, nephews, uncles, nieces and aunts massed on a balcony is maybe not sending the right signal. When I see that massive deployment of the extended royal family on the balcony (after the Trooping) I sometimes think: phew... Autumn Kelly, Xan Windsor, Mike Tindall and all the likes... The UK is unique in unloading two touringcars on that balcony...
  #2592  
Old 10-23-2016, 10:31 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 7,161
The Queen is still the Queen and she's ultimately in charge but I do think she consults and defers to Charles on many matters, especially long term planning for the Firm.

In fact I think William's opinion is sought out more and more. It was 'rumoured' during the Jubilee celebrations that Beatrice went not her uncle Charles but her cousin William when seeking a bigger role within the family but was politely rebuffed.

Charles has a clear idea of the direction he wants to take the family and I think the Queen is responsive to this.
  #2593  
Old 10-23-2016, 11:27 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: st. paul, United States
Posts: 1,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
The Queen is still the Queen and she's ultimately in charge but I do think she consults and defers to Charles on many matters, especially long term planning for the Firm.

In fact I think William's opinion is sought out more and more. It was 'rumoured' during the Jubilee celebrations that Beatrice went not her uncle Charles but her cousin William when seeking a bigger role within the family but was politely rebuffed.

Charles has a clear idea of the direction he wants to take the family and I think the Queen is responsive to this.
I would certainly hope William would be consulted on whether Beatrice should be a working royal. While Charles would support her for roughly 20 years, afterward William would be the one to support her for roughly 30-40 years. Then George would.

It's not just a decision that effects Charles and I think he is the first one to realize it.
  #2594  
Old 10-23-2016, 12:33 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 4,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
The Queen is still the Queen and she's ultimately in charge but I do think she consults and defers to Charles on many matters, especially long term planning for the Firm.
I keep hearing that the Queen is turning more and more of such decisions over to Charles.
It's quite understandable for a ninety-year-old woman who must consider the future.

Most people seem to approve Charles' desire to pare down the monarchy.

Yet I can't help feeling sorry for Beatrice, because the public life seems to be the only thing in which she has a genuine interest.
  #2595  
Old 10-23-2016, 01:16 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,814
Its only natural the Queen allows Charles more and more access and say in the running of the Royal Court and the Royal Family. Without being too morbid she is in her 90's so its only fair decisions about long term actions are taken, at least in consultation, with Charles as they are going to effect his reign as much as hers.
  #2596  
Old 10-23-2016, 01:45 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 8,840
People seem happy the royal family is slimming and I honestly wonder why. Do they think it will be less expensive because honestly that is the only concern I see. People do realize the total family will cost the same if there us 50 members as it does if there us 10? The sovereigns grant which is supplied by tax payers, will not shrink as the family does. All that will happen is there will be less people for that money to support. Less work for the same amount of money. Security costs for people like Edward and Andrew are already privately funded.

There is really no need to slim down the monarchy. It will naturally anyways. Princess Alexandra, the Gloucesters and kents are close to retiring. Anne and Edwards kids are private. Edward has had a place carved out taking over for his dad. In 20 years when will is king, his aunts and uncles will be retired or close to. It will leave him, Kate, Harry and his wife. Even with less patronages, there us a huge scope of work that would be hard got four To cover. Many patri ages that have had patrons for generations.

The reality is William will need support. It is plain bad thinking to cut loose his cousins totally. They may not be needed now, but down the line they will. Unlike his dad, will only has one sibling. And his fathers cousins, unlike the queen's, are private citizens. Allowing the yorks to do some duties now, but still live relatively private lives is a great balance. So when the day comes when will is king and he needs support, he won't have to call, them out of retirement, when they may not be willing. Eugenie has a perfect balance. She works a full time job, attends some family events, and has a handful of patronages. It would not be hard for her to increase that a bit when older.


I think in the end the shift don't be to only immediate family. I think we will simply see similar to the continentals. Where younger siblings and such still have patronages and attend events but they are encouraged To Have jobs and private lives. Like they attempted with Edward and Sophie. Charlotte and any younger siblings will be encouraged to a proper education and career paths. She may be duchess x one day and support her brother and dad, but still work. The Dutch are a great example.
  #2597  
Old 10-23-2016, 02:13 PM
PetticoatLane's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: A Small Town, United Kingdom
Posts: 575
If this story is true, and it's a thread that's been running for quite some time now, Charles and William must stand firm and insist that the Yorks lead largely private lives.

Much as I'm sure they're nice girls who could bring something to the Firm, this is totally outweighed by the PR disaster which would befall the RF if they were to become full-time royals. It would become a monkey on Charles and then William's backs for literally decades.

Unfair as I'm sure it is, the 'narrative' around the Yorks is already set in the minds of I'd say the majority of the British public - that they're work shy and grasping to hang on to their super privileged standard of living.
  #2598  
Old 10-23-2016, 02:21 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
People seem happy the royal family is slimming and I honestly wonder why. Do they think it will be less expensive because honestly that is the only concern I see. People do realize the total family will cost the same if there us 50 members as it does if there us 10? The sovereigns grant which is supplied by tax payers, will not shrink as the family does. All that will happen is there will be less people for that money to support. Less work for the same amount of money. Security costs for people like Edward and Andrew are already privately funded.

There is really no need to slim down the monarchy. It will naturally anyways. Princess Alexandra, the Gloucesters and kents are close to retiring. Anne and Edwards kids are private. Edward has had a place carved out taking over for his dad. In 20 years when will is king, his aunts and uncles will be retired or close to. It will leave him, Kate, Harry and his wife. Even with less patronages, there us a huge scope of work that would be hard got four To cover. Many patri ages that have had patrons for generations.

The reality is William will need support. It is plain bad thinking to cut loose his cousins totally. They may not be needed now, but down the line they will. Unlike his dad, will only has one sibling. And his fathers cousins, unlike the queen's, are private citizens. Allowing the yorks to do some duties now, but still live relatively private lives is a great balance. So when the day comes when will is king and he needs support, he won't have to call, them out of retirement, when they may not be willing. Eugenie has a perfect balance. She works a full time job, attends some family events, and has a handful of patronages. It would not be hard for her to increase hat a bit when older.


I think in the end the shift don't be to only immediate family. I think we will simply see similar yo the continentals. Where younger siblings and such still have patronages and attend events but they are encouraged To Have jobs and private lives. Like they attempted with Edward and Sophie. Charlotte and any younger siblings will be encouraged to a proper education and career paths. She may be duchess x one day and support her brother and dad, but still work. The Dutch are a great example.
Re security costs - Edward and Andrew (as with all working royals) have state-funded RPOs. Not privately funded at all.

Beatrice and Eugenie used to have RPOs but these were withdrawn - £500,000 being quoted as the annual cost for both (not each). Andrew now pays for their security.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
  #2599  
Old 10-23-2016, 03:04 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,814
The problem is they way the Yorks are perceived as being 'pushy'. No one would or indeed has complained about the girls doing a few odd visits to charities etc, (indeed Zara and Lady Sarah Chatto support various charities as well as working) the problem is they (or Andrew) want to create a full time royal role for themselves. Rightly or wrongly that seems at odds with what Charles wants under his reign and indeed, is at odds with William and Harry at present.

It would be interesting to know if this letter had anything to do with Eugenie now getting a new home at KP as that was, apparently, one of the things Andrew wanted. Maybe thats how they resolved it, no royal role but have the apartment at KP.
  #2600  
Old 10-23-2016, 03:10 PM
PetticoatLane's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: A Small Town, United Kingdom
Posts: 575
I think the only way the Queen has more or less got away with having so many relatives 'on the payroll' as it were, is that the Kents and Gloucesters are so low key now that the vast majority of people wouldn't recognise them if they passed them in the street.

Much as they probably deserve more media coverage for the work they do, not getting that coverage actually works in their favour. They have the privilege of living in palaces, access to all sorts of benefits that go with being TRH, security and an income provided by HM but still able to live largely private lives. None of them do masses of events, but they've got a pretty good deal.
__________________

Closed Thread

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 after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 523 05-22-2018 02:06 PM
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 310 04-09-2018 01:37 PM
Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 425 04-02-2018 05:12 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 04:06 PM




Popular Tags
antony armstrong-jones australia british royal family camilla charles chris o'neill crown princess victoria current events current events thread de belgique denmark duchess of cornwall family fashion general news genetics helena hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume historical infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia irene urdangarín iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia meghan markle miguel urdangarin nassau news porphyria prince charles prince daniel prince gabriel prince guillaume prince harry prince harry of wales prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess of belgium princess victoria queen letizia queen letizia fashion queen letizia gowns queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima daytime fashion royal royal ancestry royal geneology royal wedding state visit stephanie succession sweden swedish royal family victoria visit to spain wedding wedding of prince harry



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:08 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises