The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2761  
Old 12-21-2016, 07:08 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 3,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by soapstar View Post
According to what's been conveyed to the royal reporters, Harry is not ready to take on full-time royal work, so I'm not sure being part-time is all due to William. Plus we're not taking into account Camilla's role. She only does about 250-300 engagements a year, a far cry from the other senior members. If Harry, William, Kate and Beatrice upped their workload, some would think they were overshadowing Camilla.
Good points soapstar.
I agree that the decision to be part-time royals was not one made solely by William and Harry. There are other members and factors to be taken into consideration and ultimately the preservation of the monarchy and its transition to the next reign must be considered as a top priority IMHO. The Cambridges and Harry are merely a part of the entire package.
Also I believe that the realities that would come with a slimmed down monarchy are already taking place now with QEII's grandchildren rather than with the generation that precedes them. QEII's children and cousins continue the status quo with their engagements, patronages, and ceremonial work. In the meantime, the part-time younger generation are mostly focusing their attentions to a select group of organizations that fall under their foundation's umbrella in addition to tours and their ceremonial duties: honorary regiments, investitures (William)etc..

IMHO there are two courts that are functioning side by side now. The major one is headed QEII/DoE and includes her heir, his spouse, her other children and their spouses and the cousins. The minor court is headed by Charles and is moving his children and daughter-in-law into their places for when his reign begins. Everyone still answers to the current monarch, but one group is being prepped for the next reign right now.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2762  
Old 12-21-2016, 07:25 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
A lot of people here like to quote Richard Palmer

Well Palmer says the people he talks to say Charles is determined to take the family in a different direction.

Fewer engagements, fewer charities. I think under Charles, the obsession with counting royal engagements will come to an end.

This from Jan 2016


Read more: Hundreds of charities to lose royal support as Charles overhauls Queen's worthy causes | Royal | News | Daily Express
Given as it seems like every other day Richard Palmer is throwing a hissy fit on Twitter about how he was told one thing by sources only for something different to happen, I'm not sure I'm inclined to believe a thing that he predicts.

Just in the last few weeks he's been upset because royal sources assured him in January that the Queen would not be reducing her patronage when she turned 90 and that Harry went to Toronto after his Caribbean tour when KP had previously denied that he would do such a thing. He was also extra whiny when Andrew issued a denial of the various press claims regarding his daughters and his relationship with Charles.

As for Charles reducing the numbers game... Charles is the one who has more engagements annually than anyone except for (some years) his sister. I don't buy for a minute that he's going to drastically reduce his numbers or require anyone else to reduce theirs. William might do that, as he already tends to prefer to have (or appear to have) a deeper role with one or two charities as opposed to having a larger number of engagements with a larger number of charities. But Charles has already found a balance that enables him to be involved with charities that mean a lot to him, while also doing a large number of engagements.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2763  
Old 12-21-2016, 08:08 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,907
I just hope that in the new reign all this streamlining of engagements doesn't mean an abandonment of many valuable charities that now operate under the banner of the Princes Trust. Streamling has its pros and its cons but Prince Charles's work with these charities over forty odd years shouldn't be allowed to wither away on the vine IMHO. Perhaps they could be divided up between the Cambridges, Harry (and wife if he has one) and the King and Queen in the next reign.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2764  
Old 12-21-2016, 08:18 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 Curryong View Post
I just hope that in the new reign all this streamlining of engagements doesn't mean an abandonment of many valuable charities that now operate under the banner of the Princes Trust. Streamling has its pros and its cons but Prince Charles's work with these charities over forty odd years shouldn't be allowed to wither away on the vine IMHO. Perhaps they could be divided up between the Cambridges, Harry (and wife if he has one) and the King and Queen in the next reign.
As the Prince's Trust is so unique to Charles and has seen him pour decades of work into it, I'd not be surprised one bit if in the new reign, it simply changes from the Prince's Trust to the King's Trust.

Charles has put many people that he trusts and knows will run the Trust to do the best possible according to Charles' vision of it. There's no reason to suppose this will not continue into his reign as King. I can no more see Charles abandoning things that mean something to him than I could see him getting rid of all the pomp and circumstance and traditions that go along with a British coronation. There will be minor upgrades I bet to both but the heart of both will remain the same.
__________________
“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
  #2765  
Old 12-21-2016, 08:45 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,406
I agree - I don't see the Princes' Trust simply being inherited by William with the title, or being broken up among his children. I could see some charities being passed on to Charles' sons, daughter(s)-in-law, and grandchildren in time, but not as a huge drop.

I could see the Cambridge and Harry Foundation being split into two during Charles' reign. Charles will take on the monarch's charities and the Prince's Trust will change into the King's Trust. The Cambridges and Harry will likely take on some, but not all to Charles' charities. At this point I think the new Prince and Princess of Wales will have their own foundation, and Harry and his wife will have theirs.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2766  
Old 12-21-2016, 09:08 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 3,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
A lot of people here like to quote Richard Palmer

Well Palmer says the people he talks to say Charles is determined to take the family in a different direction.

Fewer engagements, fewer charities. I think under Charles, the obsession with counting royal engagements will come to an end.

This from Jan 2016


Read more: Hundreds of charities to lose royal support as Charles overhauls Queen's worthy causes | Royal | News | Daily Express
IMHO the transition has already started with the Queen's grandchildren and how they approach their engagements/duties. Why set them up to replicate the system that is very likely to be replaced with a new model?

In the future when Mr. O'Donovan's annual engagement tally comes to its end there might be someone else ready to take on the task or it will quietly fade into history.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2767  
Old 12-21-2016, 09:53 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,110
There are a number of people who do a tally - myself on this board, for instance (and yes I will update soon for the rest of the year) so the count will continue. Whether anyone will write letters to The Times or The Telegraph each year who knows.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2768  
Old 12-21-2016, 09:57 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I agree - I don't see the Princes' Trust simply being inherited by William with the title, or being broken up among his children. I could see some charities being passed on to Charles' sons, daughter(s)-in-law, and grandchildren in time, but not as a huge drop.

I could see the Cambridge and Harry Foundation being split into two during Charles' reign. Charles will take on the monarch's charities and the Prince's Trust will change into the King's Trust. The Cambridges and Harry will likely take on some, but not all to Charles' charities. At this point I think the new Prince and Princess of Wales will have their own foundation, and Harry and his wife will have theirs.
I see it as coming together under one umbrella, a single Windsor Royal Trust. A key function would be bringing charities together to reduce overheads and increase income on one level; and perhaps to have a way of combining single interest groups such as veterans, animal welfare or hospice care.

I watched a video tonight which said there is over 110,000 charities in the UK. Finding a way to maximise their achievements must be worthwhile.

The key fact of the Princes Trust is that currently unlike HMQs work or the Royal Foundation is that there is access to funds to help the charities from the Duchy of Cornwall.

The Duchy of Lancaster cant do that because (a) there isn't enough return on investment and (b) what there is being spent supporting royal duties being undertaken by junior royals.

The Royal Foundation depends on donations.

in the longer term, fewer royals could mean more funds for charitable causes making the BRF more active in achieving results.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #2769  
Old 12-21-2016, 10:14 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,108
I don't see how Charles as King can be actively fundraising for The Prince's Trust or the Dumfries House He can't be inviting fat cats to the palace in exchange for a donation like he does now as King.

The extra funds of the Duchy of Cornwall will be in William's hands to fund what projects he wishes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2770  
Old 12-21-2016, 11:24 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,058
under the combined Royal Trust. Lancaster income would also be included. Makes the money go further.

Plainly the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster could make donations to Royal Windsor Trust.

It could work. All this separate work is ridiculous.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #2771  
Old 12-22-2016, 12:54 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
. . . . If Princess Anne was 'allowed' to do more engagements than Charles, I don't see what's stopping Harry or Beatrice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
I disagree. I don't think Anne doing less than 20 more engagements than her brother, when they've each done more than 500 engagements (looking at last year's numbers) is a hugely noticeable difference. I do think Harry becoming a full time royal and doing 200+ engagements while William is only a part time royal doing ~100 engagements is something that would be critiqued.

There is also the fact that what counts as a royal engagement is determined by the Queen, as she controls the CC. There is a lot done by Beatrice that would likely get CC recognition if done by William or Catherine, but doesn't get CC recognition.

But a way to guess at what will change is to look at how things are now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by soapstar View Post
According to what's been conveyed to the royal reporters, Harry is not ready to take on full-time royal work, so I'm not sure being part-time is all due to William. Plus we're not taking into account Camilla's role. She only does about 250-300 engagements a year, a far cry from the other senior members. If Harry, William, Kate and Beatrice upped their workload, some would think they were overshadowing Camilla.
I am definitely in the "there is a reason" brigade. Nobody cares if numerically Anne does more "engagements" than Charles because the nature of many of his engagements has changed and become more high profile. When he is doing diplomatic duties for HM it is harder for the media to ignore him without running foul of the international press who are following their diplomats, statesmen and royals.

Camilla's role is really not an issue as just about everyone knows, she has significant health issues, was an exceptionally late starter and it was made clear at the outset she saw her foremost resonsibility as support her husband. In the event, she has fulfilled many more engagements than first envisioned, many unrecorded with Charles.

As to the dynamics of Harry and, to a lesser extent Beatrice, doing more engagements than William or Catherine? That would definitely be a minefield. We can just see the nitpickers sharpening their calculating skills and launching an offensive at the Cambridge's suppposed laziness, freeloading, ad nausem, ad infinitum. The the only way to prevent this is to keep Harry's profile lower than his brother and have William, Catherine and Harry do some joint engagements to blur the edges. Unfortunately that just doesn't leave any room for Beatrice at all. That does not mean she does nothing, just the it is not "counted".
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #2772  
Old 12-22-2016, 01:01 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,108
The topic of this thread is the monarchy under Charles. Under Charles, William is the heir apparent to the throne and the Duke of Cornwall. Neither him or Kate will be part time royals then. It doesn't matter what they are now because this thread isn't about now. It's about the future.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2773  
Old 12-22-2016, 12:44 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
The topic of this thread is the monarchy under Charles. Under Charles, William is the heir apparent to the throne and the Duke of Cornwall. Neither him or Kate will be part time royals then. It doesn't matter what they are now because this thread isn't about now. It's about the future.
This comment has been made twice now and I'm confused... given as the bulk of the conversation here has either been about how things are now and how we expect that to change, or about how things are being done now to set up the future, I'm not entirely sure where we're being off topic.

In order to speculate about the future, you have to look at what's happening now. I could go and say "I think William is going to run away to Africa and never do a single duty when his father is King, and George is going to jet around in a flying pram" but unless I have something that is happening now to support that prediction, then my prediction is really just making stuff up. While that might make me qualified to write for the Daily Mail, it wouldn't actually help this discussion in any way.

But, let it be known - you heard it here first. William's running off to Africa and George is working on getting that flying pram. Prams with wheels are just so lower class.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2774  
Old 12-22-2016, 12:59 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,969
It's being pointed out because many people are commenting on the state of affairs right now as opposed to when Charles is king. Under Charles, William, Catherine and Harry will have many more responsibilities than they have now.

When Charles is king, William for example will be Duke of Cornwall. That in of itself brings with it a ton of responsibility.

Of the 'younger' royals, it's only William who has his future pretty much mapped out for him. What Beatrice will be doing is anyone's guess.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2775  
Old 12-22-2016, 12:59 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,660
I just see it as that things don't come into focus for the next reign under Charles in an instant when the pronouncement is made "The Queen is Dead. Long Live the King!".

Coronation plans for Charles are probably pretty much already worked out and planned. One reign is winding down and it would be quite a lapse of judgment to just say "oh well... " and not implement the gearing up of how something will be.

Its called transition. Its more than placing a crown on a new monarch's head.
__________________
“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
  #2776  
Old 12-22-2016, 01:08 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,108
There was a bunch of post about William being a part time role and how it affects Kate, Harry, Bea and Eugenie. That's is what's happening now. William is going to be a full time royal under Charles. With the air ambulance contract ending in 2017, we could see it sometime next year. So all of this discussion about part time William and how it affects other royal isn't an actual problem anymore when Charles is King. He will be a full time royal. Kate will be a full time royals. The money from the Duchy of Cornwall doesn't have to support 5 working royals. So if the money was an issue now, it's not an issue under Charles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2777  
Old 12-22-2016, 01:45 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,406
You know, I was going to write a response but this argument isn't worth it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2778  
Old 12-22-2016, 03:32 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,584
I wonder if Charles will continue the usual Christmas traditions like his mother? I can see him continuing to host a larger family gathering at BP before Christmas to allow all the family to be together but I do wonder if he would continue to invite all the same royals as the Queen does now to Sandringham? I mean it would seem a bit odd IMO for Charles to invite all his siblings and cousins but not Camilla's children and grandchildren. I suspect any change will be somewhat gradual though.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2779  
Old 12-22-2016, 03:56 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,660
I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong here but from what I understand, when HM is "at home" whether it be at Sandringham, Balmoral or Windsor Castle, its pretty much that the people that come to stay are at her invitation. This, I believe, also applies to things like the Boxing Day shoot.

The Christmas traditional times for just family are those family members that the Queen feels she is close to. The large, extended family gathers at BP before HM leaves to spend the holidays at Sandringham. At Sandringham, its close immediate family.

I expect that Charles would very much stick to this tradition. Perhaps some of the relatives that are now invited to Sandringham will be relegated to the BP Christmas lunch. Maybe not. We don't really have any clue how Charles really feels about those closely related to him. I wouldn't be expecting Charles to invite Camilla's family from before her marriage to Charles to the intimate "family only" traditional times but they well could be invited to come and spend some time afterwards. Or, Camilla may feel the most comfortable going to Ray Mill or her children's homes for the celebrations.

This is an area where I think we'll just have to watch and see what 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
  #2780  
Old 12-22-2016, 05:04 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 6,933
I actually think, if they feel comfortable enough to accept, camillas family coming. As you said, it is about close family event. William and Harry have been close to their step siblings long before Charles and Camilla married. It wouldn't be awkward and uncomfortable. Nor do I think his siblings would have much issue.
__________________

__________________
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: 2 (0 members and 2 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 11:01 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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