The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2661  
Old 10-25-2016, 12:06 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
I tend to get confused by the issue, so I just worked it out on paper.

Not all of the Queen's first cousins became full time working royals. That would tell me that there is not precedent that a prince or princess must be given digs at KP and a job as a full time royal.

None of Charles first cousins are full time working royals. Again, this tells me there is not a precedent.

Just because you are a princess or prince, there is no precedent saying you must be given work as a full time royal. Two generations back.

There's only one generation of precedence actually.

George V had 5 children to survive to adulthood; Edward VIII, George VI, Mary, Henry, and George. Edward had no children, and the children of Mary were never royals.

George VI, of course, had two daughters, Elizabeth II and Margaret, who did royal duties for most of their lives.

Henry had two sons, and it seems like it was kind of expected that his elder son (William) would in time become a working royal, but he died rather young. Instead, the younger son (Richard) gave up his career as an architect to work for the family, so to speak, when William died.

Similarly, George had two sons and a daughter (Edward, Michael, and Alexandra). It was expected that Edward would work for the family, while Alexandra and Michael were expected to make their own way - Michael went in the military, while Alexandra studied to be (I believe) a nurse. Alexandra's private career got kiboshed (much like her cousin's) with the early death of George VI, and with a relatively small royal family she began doing full time royal duties.

I think it's kind of important to remember that in 1950 Queen Mary and 6 of her children and daughters-in-law were working royals, but by 1960 that had been reduced to just 1 child and 3 daughters-in-law, and the Queen was a woman with young children. Her cousins, those that ended up working full time, were essentially conscripted into it by the deaths of those before them.

Now, as for the descendants of George VI; Elizabeth of course became Queen, and Margaret was a full time royal for much of her life. Elizabeth's children have followed suit, but Margaret's fall into the same category as Mary's children - they're not royals, have never been, and therefore don't do royal duties.

In this generation, looking at the Queen's grandchildren, Anne's clearly follow the precedent of Mary and Margaret's - not royals, never have been. Charles' clearly fall into the precedent of being the future of the family. But Andrew's and Edward's are in an in between - they could end up with private careers, but they might get called up (like the Gloucesters and Kents did).

I actually tend to think that Edward has taken moves to make it unlikely that his kids will ever be seen as royals, and therefore will avoid that role altogether. And I honestly don't think Eugenie wants the role, I think she's happy to have a private career. Beatrice is different, and I think she's been put into an awkward position by life. In time there could very easily be a full time role for her - unless the plan is to drastically reduce the number of engagements once the Queen and her cousins pass, Beatrice could easily step into a void that will open up in a few years. But because William, Harry, and Kate aren't full time royals, and because the Gloucesters and Kents continue to work (to varying degrees), Beatrice is in a spot where she can't do more... but if the plan is for her to one day step into that role, then she'd also be silly to seriously pursue a career that she'll one day have to give up - I somehow doubt the Queen wants her granddaughter to have to make the same sacrifice that two of her cousins had to make.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2662  
Old 10-25-2016, 12:37 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,108
The Monarchy under Charles

Probably the best Eugenie and Beatrice can hope for is a Prince Michael of Kent level of royal activity- supplemental royal at BP reception, garden parties, state dinners, occasionally representing the monarch at an engagement.

Without the premature death of George VI and his brother the Duke of Kent, the Queen's cousins may not have been pulled into royal duties. Any children after Charles and Anne would have likely been born earlier. The children would be adults in the 70s able to fill the void when the children of George V pass away.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2663  
Old 10-25-2016, 12:59 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke of poliganc View Post
no he can't do that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles...ation_Act_1917
George V removed the title prince and Princess of the United Kingdom by an Act of Parliament because the the hanovers and the Saxe-Coburg and Gothas who were also prince and Princess of the United Kingdom served in the army against the uk
and when he limted who get to be HRH and prince and Princess of the United Kingdom he didn't remove the titles from those who already held them so even if Charles want to limit it they won't get thier title taken away
Alastair Windsor, 2nd Duke of Connaught might disagree with you there. He was born HRH Prince Alastair of Connaught, but in 1917 he lost his royal titles and became simply Earl of Macduff - George V's LPs didn't apply to him, as he was the great-grandson of a monarch. As he was only 3 at the time, and his father was in the British military, I think it's fair to say that he wasn't serving in the army against Britain.

The LPs did not apply to Princesses Maud and Alexandra, as they were specifically created HH Princesses by the will of the monarch; they were the daughters of Louise, Princess Royal, herself the daughter of Edward VII. Neither of them continued to use the style after their marriages, but Maud continued to be HH Princess Maud until 1923.

Either Charles or William will very likely issue new LPs that will change the way titles are given in Britain; the change of gender in the succession is going to push it in time. And in time either of them could restrict the titles in such a way that the Yorks, Kents, Gloucesters, and Wessexes will all be without royal titles - although, if they do that, then any future children of Harry's will also be title-less. Personally, I kind of doubt that Charles is going to issue LPs to strip the Kents and Gloucesters of their titles after many years of service and deny his future grandchildren of titles just to strip his brother's kids of titles that they can't even pass down.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2664  
Old 10-25-2016, 01:18 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,108
The Monarchy under Charles

Ideally it if you limit the HRH to the children of the monarch and the children of the heir apparent, that eliminates the male bias in titles and the problem of excess non direct line Prince and Princess hanging around. No grandkids are HRHs unless their parent is the heir apparent.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2665  
Old 10-25-2016, 11:18 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,907
We've talked a lot about titles and personalities in the BRF in the reign of King Charles, but I was just thinking today of the practicalities of replacing many, many things, even if it's done gradually, as it will be after a reign of sixty to seventy years or more by one person.

Security costs to protect guests, VIPs and others at the State funeral but also at Charles's Coronation to follow, are likely to be sky high. However, I hope there are plans in place the gargantuan task of replacing the Queen's cipher/insignia everywhere, from policemen's helmets to the uniforms of beefeaters at the Tower of London. British Passports will have to be issued in the King's name not Queen Elizabeth's. Coins, stamps, notes, post boxes will all have to be replaced, sooner or later, the national anthem will sound strange for a while. This will be a monumental event for the British people in more ways than one.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2666  
Old 10-25-2016, 11:56 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Ideally it if you limit the HRH to the children of the monarch and the children of the heir apparent, that eliminates the male bias in titles and the problem of excess non direct line Prince and Princess hanging around. No grandkids are HRHs unless their parent is the heir apparent.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
That is, with differences, what happened in Spain, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium. Limiting to the core royal family. Norway is in the extreme as Princess Ingrid Alexandra's brother Sverre is no HRH and no Prince of Norway. The times, they are changing. King Charles and King William will set the things their way. And when strange things happen, Brexit in mind (Scotland independent, Irish unification, modernization of the parliamentary system, implosion of the Commonwealth, Canada and Australia becoming republics, etc.) a lot will change in their Reigns.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2667  
Old 10-25-2016, 11:58 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,108
No one is still around from 1901 where we had the transition from Victoria to Edward VII. Probably the closest modern comparison is Pope John Paul II. The coins, stamps, mailboxes will be a gradual transition. There is more than likely an approval Charles profile head ready to go at the royal mint. It will be a sad but interesting time.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2668  
Old 10-25-2016, 03:40 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,406
That actually reminds me of an article I read in a recent Canadian newspaper - when they were doing the portraits for the 2012 Canadian bank notes the issue of what to do if the Queen dies before the next set of bank notes goes out / begins to be planned. Evidently a lot of time and money goes into developing them. I believe it was actually discussed that instead of putting Charles on the 20 note when he's king, they may go with a Canadian of note (with the requirement that it be a deceased one). It kind of falls into the push for women who aren't the monarch to be on Canadian bank notes that we're seeing right now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2669  
Old 10-25-2016, 04:15 PM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 3,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
None of Charles' first cousins are HRHs ( i.e princes or princesses) since they are grandchildren of a monarch in female line.
Acutually he has some HRH cousins from his fathers side.
Reply With Quote
  #2670  
Old 10-25-2016, 04:41 PM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
The funding has nothing to do with the number of working royals.

HMQ gets 15% of the net profit from Crown Estates (although this funding level is due for review next yr). This pays not only for royal staff but also maintenance of royal palaces. She also has income from Duchy of Lancaster.

she decides who does royal duties and pays to support their offices (excl PoW and family).

If there were less royals then repairs and maintenance of royal palaces could be speeded up.

Where savings would be made is on security.
It's fine that the funding is not tied to the number of working royals but when the streamlining discussion happens, even the use of the term streamlining, it implies that the motive is to contain and/or cut back on costs. I think that it's going to get very interesting when some enterprising reporter writes the story that about royal family has/is streamlining but also notes that the funding formula has stayed the same.

I'm not 100% sure but my understanding is that the funding relating to the palaces comes from more than one stream, there the Crown Estates allotment but there is also a standalone grant earmarked for the royal residences, the royal residences generate their own income through tours and finally the monarch can make special requests for funding. I will concede that if the Queen and Prince Charles plan to foot the bill to bring the palaces up to scratch from the Sovereign Grant and the Duchy of Lancaster income (I've seen figures ranging from £50 million to £150 million) then I can see where some hard choices have to be made. I guess we will see if that will be the case.

I think that the security costs for minor working royals are incremental and tied to royal work. In the case of one or both York princesses, she/they will get security for royal engagements but not for shopping trips, an evening at Annabel's or vacationing on the Abramovich yacht.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2671  
Old 10-25-2016, 04:53 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,969
All grants in aid have been replaced by the Sovereign Grant. Everything comes out of the SG. Palace upkeep, official travel, etc.

Charles will also have the income from the Duchy of Lancaster. The Queen currently uses this to fund the activities of her children and cousins. The Duchy of Lancaster provides an income to the Sovereign.

I think the streamlining has as much to do with optics as economics.

It makes sense to have Charles family as the 'core' royals and the others used as needed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2672  
Old 10-25-2016, 05:18 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
It's fine that the funding is not tied to the number of working royals but when the streamlining discussion happens, even the use of the term streamlining, it implies that the motive is to contain and/or cut back on costs. I think that it's going to get very interesting when some enterprising reporter writes the story that about royal family has streamlining but also notes that the funding formula has stayed the same.

I'm not 100% sure but my understanding is that the funding relating to the palaces comes from more than one stream, there the Crown Estates allotment but there is also a standalone grant earmarked for the royal residences, the royal residences generate their own income through tours and finally the monarch can make special requests for funding. I will concede that if the Queen and Charles plan to foot the bill to bring the palaces up to scratch from the Sovereign Grant and Duchy of Lancaster (I've seen figures ranging from £50 million to £150 million) then I can see where some hard choices have to be made. I guess we will see if that will be the case.

I think that the security costs for minor working royals are incremental and tied to royal work. In the case of one or both York princesses, she/they will get security for royal engagements but not for shopping trips, an evening at Annabel's or vacationing on the Abramovich yacht.
I'm going to address both bolded areas as I think some clarification is needed. First, the repairs to the palaces. What needs to be stressed is that no matter who funds the repairs or where the funds for the repairs to palaces come from, the work is not being done exclusively for the Queen, Charles or anyone else in particular. The royal family do not own these properties and in reality, other than the Queen owning outright the private estates of Sandringham and Balmoral, no other royal actually holds the deed and owns property for the most part. Anne does own Gatcombe Park but that was a gift from HM to Anne and Mark Phillips when they married.

All repairs and being brought up to snuff of royal landmarks, palaces etc are done to preserve historic buildings that are part of UK heritage.

Second bolded statement. The York girls' security, at all times, is paid for by their father, Andrew. I would imagine if they were accompanying Andrew on an official engagement, then their security would be provided for but we know that rarely happens.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #2673  
Old 10-25-2016, 06:18 PM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 574
Good points. I was addressing a reply to a comment I made about the formula that funds the current set up and will it be adapted for a streamlined set up. The reply to me was that funding formula is not correlated to the number of working royals, therefore there will be the same funding for fewer working royal, but because there will be fewer working royals, the funding that the monarch gets from the Sovereign Grant and the Duchy of Lancaster can be used to speed up the repairs and maintenance of royal palaces, which I assume means the official palaces, not the private residences.

There was also a comment made about savings being gleaned from security, and my reply was that I think security costs for minor working royals are incremental. As you are pointing out Andrew covers the costs for his daughters' security, and if one or both became working royals I doubt if that means that Andrew will be relieved of whatever security costs he is footing for them for their private activities.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2674  
Old 10-25-2016, 06:55 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,108
The Duchy of Lancaster income is private income of the monarch. The monarch doesn't own the palaces. The Queen isn't going to pay for BP's roof with her own money just like President Obama would not pay for repairs to the White House with his salary.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2675  
Old 10-25-2016, 07:15 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan View Post
Acutually he has some HRH cousins from his fathers side.

None of Charles' first cousins are HRHs in Britain (which was the point being made). The cousins that are HRHs, on his father's side, are all German royals and thus don't have their titles recognized by their own state - and haven't for almost a hundred years now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2676  
Old 10-27-2016, 05:21 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,935
Pages and pages of bile about a delusional Andrew, a hostile Charles and two sisters that don't make waves.

All on the strength of the Daily Mail's Stephanie Linning who, since much of the text is identical, got her information from the same unnamed "source" as the Sunday Express's Camilla Tominey, our nearest and dearest friend's at the DM and Express.

Who cares if there is no point of reference, not even insiders who have seen the Queens two eldest sons come to fisticuffs or whatever. Maybe even a smuggled out copy of a letter or memo or two just to prove the allegations bona fides.

No, if I had any doubt that these are more ventures into creative writing and rags plagiarising each other, the following quote settles it for me.
Quote:
“He (Prince Andrew) believes his daughters are already being overshadowed by William, Kate and Harry and the situation will get worse as Prince George and Princess Charlotte get older.
Correct me if I am wrong, but have not several posts addressed the (supposed) issue of Prince Andrew knowing his place? Multiple posts in fact. You cannot tell me he thinks Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie should overshadow the direct heirs, why would he because like it or not, he is the heir's brother and they are the heir's children and grandchildren.

Ah well, Charles isn't even the monarch yet but we sure are getting mileage out of his reign!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #2677  
Old 10-27-2016, 04:31 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: central valley, United States
Posts: 829
Ah, but this does have the odd effect of good press for Charles as it makes him look like the reasonable brother trying to economize by standing up to airmiles Andy's dastardly scheme to foist his spendthrift/wastrel daughters' upkeep onto the taxpayers.*
It's a variation on the younger brother plotting to usurp their elder brother's throne theme which resonates w/ people because history is littered with examples.

* I'm not saying this is what I believe re: the Yorks - just this is how the tabs are painting it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2678  
Old 10-29-2016, 08:16 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,584
Prince Charles insists Beatrice and Eugenie don’t deserve full-time royal status | Daily Mail Online

And it goes on...Charles is definitely getting the better press out of this. Equally all of this just makes is less and less likely that the girls will ever be full time working royals, if Charles were to let them it would simply look like he was caving in to the press and media fuss. The argument that Bea feels if she was a working royal she wouldn't have gone on so many holidays is ridiculous!!

For all the sisters’ seemingly endless holidays around the world — which have attracted much criticism and even mockery — Prince Andrew believes that the older they get, the more they feel a need to contribute to the Royal Family’s public duties.
Currently, all we see semi-officially of Beatrice, 28, and Eugenie, 26, are rare outings accompanying their father, or when they join the family at royal events such as Buckingham Palace garden parties and receptions.
Prince Andrew believes that the older Beatrice and Eugenie get, the more they feel a need to contribute to the Royal Family’s public duties.
So could the girls, even now, be asked to join the exclusive roster of senior royals carrying out official engagements?
The truth is, it seems unlikely. For whatever Prince Andrew may have said to his mother, Charles remains intransigent.
The latter’s view, according to courtiers, is that while the Princesses ‘should, of course, be treated properly, as befits their royal status, they cannot have a public role and cannot be taxpayer-funded’.
‘He is quite clear on that,’ one courtier stresses.
The issue highlights a stark difference in attitudes among the Royal Family.
Of course, for years Andrew’s sister, Princess Anne, has made sure her own untitled children, Zara and Peter, avoid the royal round and pursue jobs and interests in the real world.


__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2679  
Old 10-29-2016, 09:03 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 2,463
Honestly, i sometimes think DM reads forums like ours and uses the juicy posts to come up with an article
__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #2680  
Old 10-29-2016, 09:28 AM
duke of poliganc's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: cairo, Egypt
Posts: 604
i hate that the monarchy in uk become more of a popularity contest and reality show and actually the establishment is starting to behave like a reality show producer who do any thing the public want to increase the show's viewers .
when u see the comments on the dm article u will see it's more aboat popularity more than the idea of slimming the working royals if you say instead of andrew that prince harry who is gonna be in prince andrew same shoes and his children will be treated the same way prince andrew and his daughters is being treated you gonna see a different response .
__________________

__________________
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: 3 (0 members and 3 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
Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 417 12-01-2017 08:29 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 515 09-28-2017 10:22 PM
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 309 10-31-2016 06:54 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 05:06 PM




Popular Tags
birthday british royal history carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria crown princess victoria hats current events denmark duchess of brabant duchess of cambridge earl of snowdon family general news grand duke henri hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín jewels king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein lord snowdon love monarchy monarchy versus republic news official visit paris prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince harry of wales prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen silvia question soderberg spanish royal family state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family victoria zog



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:02 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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