The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3141  
Old 06-01-2017, 02:42 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Why should the Gloucester's give up when they are as young as they are? They are only a couple of years older than Charles and Camilla.



The Kent's are older of course - both in their 80s but the Gloucester's were born in 1944 and 1946 with Camilla only a year younger in 1947 and Charles in 1948,


Yes I agree. If they are too old then that would make Charles too old as well hand it over to William !! The BRF have long life genes I think they will carry on a bit longer
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3142  
Old 06-01-2017, 08:11 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,660
One word that could describe the British monarchy best is continuity. It continues on strong and the words change and replace aren't something that is done by the bucketfuls and I don't think that will apply when the time comes and Charles takes the throne.

The changes that are made happen gradually. There has been a steady winding down of the Queen's and Philip's roles in certain things since the Diamond Jubilee year and a ramping up of the younger royals involvement in things at the same time. Right now the monarchy is very much into a transitional phase with Charles and Camilla gradually doing more and more for Charles' parents.

The cousins like the Gloucesters and the Kents have long served the crown in their own capacity and Charles' isn't about to houseclean and deem them unnecessary but rather, with the passage of time, they'll also slow down and not be able to do as much as the younger royals will be able to do.

I don't think we're going to see a whole lot of changes to the monarchy that will be termed as "instant" when Charles succeeds his mother. There will be changes, yes, over the years but they'll be gradual and when we look at them years from now, we'll probably see how some of them have already been started to be implemented now. Perhaps even now there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes that are actually preparing ahead of time for the smooth transition between Charles and William.

The monarchy isn't like a political party where there's a change of Prime Minister and you have a labor or a conservative influence with each PM but the monarchy itself is an institution that reflects all of the British people and not the individual sitting on the throne as a rule. Charles will, for sure, add his own touches and flavor to his reign but the underlying continuity of the monarchy will not change.

At least that's how I see it. How different a lot of republican governments would be if the core of their governments were for all of the people instead of their different political parties.
__________________

__________________
“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
  #3143  
Old 06-17-2017, 11:13 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
BTW I think the 'slimming down' oft spoken of is only in terms of titles and salaries, correct?
I haven't heard that Charles intends on cutting down the titles. He only has two children and William already has two children. The Queen issued LPs that to ensure all of William's children will be HRHs thus extending the number that qualify under the 1917 LPs.

The only adjustment Charles could make would be to limit HRH to only the children of the heir apparent and thus deny Harry's children HRHs which I don't see him doing and Harry is the only other person who can have HRH children in the next generation.

No royals get a salary so the 'slimming down' won't affect that at all. Charles will get the Duchy of Lancaster estate for his private income and to use to support any members of the family that he chooses - presumable Harry and Harry's family. William will get the Duchy of Cornwall estate to support himself, Kate, George and Charlotte. He will also have to negotiate a Sovereign Grant with the parliament and may end up with basically the same as his mother - 15% of the income of the Crown Estate.

What he means by 'slimming down' is to have fewer royals undertaking royal duties and appearing to be part of the royal family. That means, I suspect, that no one who currently undertakes royal duties will be stopped but only George and possibly Charlotte, along with Harry's wife, in the future will be added to the working royals - no place for Beatrice or Eugenie or Harry's children.

That means that as for instance The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra retire there won't be anyone to replace them.


Quote:
That would not preclude King Charles from continuing on with his mother's twice-a-year family reunions, I would think. Why give up on that, just because of a change in reigns? It seems to me, Charles would want to gather his extended family around him, if only just twice a year. It's a way of thank you, too.
I suspect it will be a smaller balcony - his children and grandchildren and maybe his siblings and their spouses but not necessarily his siblings children.

I am not sure he will see a need for the extended family get-togethers at all. He doesn't seem all that close to his brothers or their children. He is actually closer to his mother's cousins - in age and thinking.

I think he may still have some sort of Christmas get-together as I doubt he will have his siblings or cousins at Sandringham so a smaller gathering at the big house as well (although I suspect Camilla's children will be there but not do the walk of course).

Quote:
BTW will King Charles have an official June Birthday, too, because of the weather being so nasty in November? Wondering.
As they didn't move the date to December for George VI or back to April for the Queen and it will move back to June for William and George it makes sense to leave it where it has been now for over a century.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3144  
Old 06-18-2017, 12:30 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,273
Great post, Iluvberie. Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I haven't heard that Charles intends on cutting down the titles. He only has two children and William already has two children. The Queen issued LPs that to ensure all of William's children will be HRHs thus extending the number that qualify under the 1917 LPs.

The only adjustment Charles could make would be to limit HRH to only the children of the heir apparent and thus deny Harry's children HRHs which I don't see him doing and Harry is the only other person who can have HRH children in the next generation.
Understood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
No royals get a salary so the 'slimming down' won't affect that at all. Charles will get the Duchy of Lancaster estate for his private income and to use to support any members of the family that he chooses - presumable Harry and Harry's family. William will get the Duchy of Cornwall estate to support himself, Kate, George and Charlotte. He will also have to negotiate a Sovereign Grant with the parliament and may end up with basically the same as his mother - 15% of the income of the Crown Estate.

What he means by 'slimming down' is to have fewer royals undertaking royal duties and appearing to be part of the royal family. That means, I suspect, that no one who currently undertakes royal duties will be stopped but only George and possibly Charlotte, along with Harry's wife, in the future will be added to the working royals - no place for Beatrice or Eugenie or Harry's children.

That means that as for instance The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra retire there won't be anyone to replace them.
Understood. Thank you. Hope I remember all this and don't go blank with it all. I think this has been explained before. Pregnancy brain, methinks, too soon after my last one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I suspect it will be a smaller balcony - his children and grandchildren and maybe his siblings and their spouses but not necessarily his siblings children.
Okay, we'll see how that plays out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I am not sure he will see a need for the extended family get-togethers at all. He doesn't seem all that close to his brothers or their children. He is actually closer to his mother's cousins - in age and thinking.
Plus he has a large circle of friends that are interesting. Maybe more house parties, perhaps? A more lively social scene? Do you think? Would love to see a glitterati of guests.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I think he may still have some sort of Christmas get-together as I doubt he will have his siblings or cousins at Sandringham so a smaller gathering at the big house as well (although I suspect Camilla's children will be there but not do the walk of course).
Not sure what you're saying here: are you saying there will be no family gathering at Christmas? Won't William and his family be at Anmer, and wouldn't they be with him for 'the walk'? Hard to say, I know - being future tense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
As they didn't move the date to December for George VI or back to April for the Queen and it will move back to June for William and George it makes sense to leave it where it has been now for over a century.
Thank you. Now I know.
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #3145  
Old 06-18-2017, 01:11 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,660
If I remember right, the only time we saw a personification of a "slimmed down monarchy" was the balcony appearance during the Diamond Jubilee where it was the Queen (Philip was sick at the time I believe), Charles and Camilla, William, Kate and Harry. It was the future of the monarchy that was represented and not "slimmed down" to exclude other family members.

The Queen's birthday parade known as Trooping the Color includes all of her extended family. Savannah and Isla have the same relationship to their great grandmother as George and Charlotte do.

The difference is the tone of the celebrations. The Diamond Jubilee was a celebration of the reign of a monarch. Trooping the Color is a celebration of the Queen herself.

As far as I know, all the rumors about a "slimmed down" monarchy in the future whether under Charles or William are just that. Rumors. We have no clue whatsoever what plans future monarchs will implement.
__________________
“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
  #3146  
Old 06-18-2017, 01:19 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
Plus he has a large circle of friends that are interesting. Maybe more house parties, perhaps? A more lively social scene? Do you think? Would love to see a glitterati of guests.
I don't see that happening. He has grown up with his mother's example and I really don't think he wants to go down the route of lots of public displays of wealth. He knows that the British people don't want that and would be very upset - note how many people are arguing that even Trooping should have been cancelled or the colours toned down for this year due to recent events. Charles has his pulse on things like this and won't go down a route that would see him put the institution at risk.



Quote:
Not sure what you're saying here: are you saying there will be no family gathering at Christmas? Won't William and his family be at Anmer, and wouldn't they be with him for 'the walk'? Hard to say, I know - being future tense.
I don't think Charles will have his siblings and their children with him for Christmas at Sandringham at all.

I do think he will have Camilla's children and grandchildren there instead.

Of course William will be at Anmer and Harry will either stay with his brother or father.

The 'walk' will simply be Charles and Camilla, William, Kate and kids, Harry, wife and kids and no one else. Camilla's kids may or may not go to the church but they want walk there with the rest of the royals.

Of course Charles may not even have Christmas at Sandringham as he currently spends less than 24 hours there over Christmas. He may decide to have Christmas and New Year at Birkhall where he spends New Year now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3147  
Old 06-18-2017, 03:19 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Of course Charles may not even have Christmas at Sandringham as he currently spends less than 24 hours there over Christmas. He may decide to have Christmas and New Year at Birkhall where he spends New Year now.
I was thinking exactly the same thing, Iluvbertie. I can see that. But then what about Camilla en familia? And does Charles then leave William and Kate and children with Harry et al to do 'the walk' at Sandringham? That would be startling, don't you think?

However, what happens if there is a successful splitting off of Scotland?
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #3148  
Old 06-18-2017, 03:28 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,110
William only spends every second Christmas with his father now and I don't see that changing time in the future - even when his father is King. Harry will be the same I suspect.

Camilla and her family will be with Camilla and if that means Scotland then that is where they will be.

If Scotland does have another referendum - and that isn't a given - the current polls show even less support for independence than in 2014 so I don't think they need to worry about that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3149  
Old 06-18-2017, 05:34 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 3,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
William only spends every second Christmas with his father now and I don't see that changing time in the future - even when his father is King. Harry will be the same I suspect.
So where would they be? If Charles is in Scotland for Christmas and New Year's, would that be where William and Harry would bring their families? They'd do church up there and all?

I can honestly see why Charles so likes it up there during that season, for just the snow alone. Though I'd be toasty warm with some decent indoor heating as well as a fireplace roaring in every room! Perfect cozy with all the holiday trimmings!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Camilla and her family will be with Camilla and if that means Scotland then that is where they will be.
Okay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
If Scotland does have another referendum - and that isn't a given - the current polls show even less support for independence than in 2014 so I don't think they need to worry about that.
Understood. But it's an interesting speculation: what would happen were that to eventuate? Charles would be going into a foreign country for the holidays, not so? Would that be cricket? Would he be compelled to stay at Sandringham, then?
__________________
Russian National Anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoNaLjQrV8
O Magnum Mysterium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWU7dyey6yo
Reply With Quote
  #3150  
Old 06-18-2017, 06:21 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Nimue View Post
So where would they be? If Charles is in Scotland for Christmas and New Year's, would that be where William and Harry would bring their families? They'd do church up there and all?
Yes - I would expect every second or third year that William and Harry would take their families to Scotland if that is where Charles wanted to spend Christmas and go to church there as well

Quote:
Understood. But it's an interesting speculation: what would happen were that to eventuate? Charles would be going into a foreign country for the holidays, not so? Would that be cricket? Would he be compelled to stay at Sandringham, then?

If Scotland was independent I suspect that Charles would be discouraged from going to there for Christmas but ... all the evidence at the time of the last referendum was that the Scots would keep the monarchy and so he would simply be going to another realm - same as going to Australia or Canada.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3151  
Old 06-18-2017, 07:04 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,660
Thing is that no matter what happens in Scotland, the Balmoral estate, Birkhall and Sandringham are personal holdings and private properties with no connection to the Crown. Charles has always had a deep affinity for Scotland and loves his times spent there and I really don't think that will change. For all we know, he may even decide on Christmas at Windsor Castle if the renovations for Buckingham Palace are still ongoing.

So much in what Charles or William may do as monarch is primarily guesswork and we really won't know until the time comes. We've just lived for so long with the familiarity of the way the Queen does things that any little thing different could signify a "break" in tradition when actually its been the Queen's traditions that we've lived with for so long.
__________________
“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
  #3152  
Old 06-18-2017, 07:32 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,584
Maybe Charles will do one year with the RF family (his siblings and their children) and one year with Camilla's family. Bear in mind Camilla's children probably also like spending time at Christmas with their father.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3153  
Old 06-18-2017, 07:39 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post

The Queen's birthday parade known as Trooping the Color includes all of her extended family. Savannah and Isla have the same relationship to their great grandmother as George and Charlotte do.
They may have the same degree of kinship (i.e. "proximity of blood") to the Queen, but it is hardly the same relationship in broader terms. For starters, Savannah and Isla are not HRHs, nor are their parents. In other words, they are not members of the Royal House of Windsor in the technical sense, but rather members of the Phillips family, which, whether people on this forum like it or not, goes back to the old patrilineal definition of family. Besides, Savannah and Isla are 14th and 15th respectively in the line of succession to the throne whereas George and Charlotte are 3rd and 4th, and George in particular is in direct line, i.e. he will very likely be king one day, as will his father and grandfather probably.

Personally, I don't think it is necessary to limit the rank of prince/princess of the United Kingdom to children of the monarch and of the heir apparent only. I do think, however, that , with the introduction of equal primogeniture under the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, it doesn't make sense anymore to keep the distinction between the monarch's grandchildren in male and female line as far as titles are concerned. I would be satisfied with a system like in Belgium or Sweden where all grandchildren of the monarch are princes/princesses and HRHs, or, at least, where the heir's children are HRHs while children of the heir's siblings are HHs as in Denmark, but nonetheless acknowledged as members of the Royal House.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3154  
Old 06-18-2017, 07:52 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

I don't think Charles will have his siblings and their children with him for Christmas at Sandringham at all.

I do think he will have Camilla's children and grandchildren there instead.

Of course William will be at Anmer and Harry will either stay with his brother or father.

The 'walk' will simply be Charles and Camilla, William, Kate and kids, Harry, wife and kids and no one else. Camilla's kids may or may not go to the church but they want walk there with the rest of the royals.

Of course Charles may not even have Christmas at Sandringham as he currently spends less than 24 hours there over Christmas. He may decide to have Christmas and New Year at Birkhall where he spends New Year now.
Christmas at Sandringham, "the walk", or even summer at Balmoral may be family traditions, but they don't compare IMHO to Trooping of the Colour, the Christmas broadcast, or a constitutional ceremony like the State Opening of Parliament, all of which Charles is bound to keep. I see family traditions changing under Charles and, maybe even more so, under William and Catherine, but more institutional events that make sense to keep will probably be kept.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3155  
Old 06-18-2017, 08:14 AM
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 Mbruno View Post
They may have the same degree of kinship (i.e. "proximity of blood") to the Queen, but it is hardly the same relationship in broader terms. For starters, Savannah and Isla are not HRHs, nor are their parents. In other words, they are not members of the Royal House of Windsor in the technical sense, but rather members of the Phillips family, which, whether people on this forum like it or not, goes back to the old patrilineal definition of family. Besides, Savannah and Isla are 14th and 15th respectively in the line of succession to the throne whereas George and Charlotte are 3rd and 4th, and George in particular is in direct line, i.e. he will very likely be king one day, as will his father and grandfather probably.
It is very true that in relation to the monarchy, George and Charlotte do have a more significant place and role in it. The entire point of the post that I was trying to make was that in a celebration of a Diamond Jubilee of a reigning monarch, it was appropriate to enhance the future of that monarchy with the Queen appearing on the balcony with her heir and his two sons (and Kate) symbolizing continuity of the institution of a constitutional monarchy.

Trooping the Color, although one of the biggest and most impressive displays of pomp and pageantry that the British do so well, is actually a personal celebration of the monarch's birthday. In her personal life, George, Charlotte, Isla and Savannah are all equally her great grandchildren. In her personal life, her children and her grandchildren are her family. I don't for a minute believe that HM would prefer, for example, William over Louise because William is higher up in the succession to the monarchy than Louise is or because William is a HRH and Louise is not. Familial relationships are totally different than the rank and file and titles of the monarchy.

This was the point I was trying to elaborate on. One occasion stressed the continuity of the monarchy and the other represented a family coming together to celebrate a family member's birthday.
__________________
“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
  #3156  
Old 06-18-2017, 08:46 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
It is very true that in relation to the monarchy, George and Charlotte do have a more significant place and role in it. The entire point of the post that I was trying to make was that in a celebration of a Diamond Jubilee of a reigning monarch, it was appropriate to enhance the future of that monarchy with the Queen appearing on the balcony with her heir and his two sons (and Kate) symbolizing continuity of the institution of a constitutional monarchy.

Trooping the Color, although one of the biggest and most impressive displays of pomp and pageantry that the British do so well, is actually a personal celebration of the monarch's birthday. In her personal life, George, Charlotte, Isla and Savannah are all equally her great grandchildren. In her personal life, her children and her grandchildren are her family. I don't for a minute believe that HM would prefer, for example, William over Louise because William is higher up in the succession to the monarchy than Louise is or because William is a HRH and Louise is not. Familial relationships are totally different than the rank and file and titles of the monarchy.

This was the point I was trying to elaborate on. One occasion stressed the continuity of the monarchy and the other represented a family coming together to celebrate a family member's birthday.

Thanks, Osipi. I agree with your opinion on the family relationship !

My main point though in the previous message was actually to emphasize why I think the 1917 LPs will have to be changed soon. Let's assume William and Catherine have another boy. Under current law, that hypothetical boy and his future children would be further removed from the throne than Charlotte and Charlotte's future children. Nevertheless, his children would be HRHs under the 1917 LPs whereas Charlotte's children would not. Again, it doesn't make sense.

To become compatible with the new succession rules, the LPs also have to become gender neutral. Either Charles moves to a Dutch-like system where only the heir's children are HRHs (regardless of the heir's gender), which would be the "minimalist" solution and IMO unnecessary/ too draconian, or he follows the Belgian example under KIng Philippe's latest royal decree and introduces a rule that all future grandchildren of a sovereign, starting with his own grandchildren, will be HRHs. That wouldn't increase the number of HRHs in the next generation, as Charles only has two sons whose children would already be HRHs anyway, but it could potentially increase the number of HRHs in the future. Again, I don't personally see that as a problem (others may disagree).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3157  
Old 06-18-2017, 10:50 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,660
I've just realized that what happened between our posts Mbruno is that they were moved. My response was actually to something that was stated in the Trooping the Color thread and you most pleasantly brought it all on topic in this one. Nothing like the smooth flow of things eh?

It got me to thinking though and I've come up with something that may or may not be of concern when it comes to Charles' reign. I'm not stating any kind of fact but rather questioning as I have no clue how this would work. Is it possible that should Harry marry Meghan, an American citizen, that should she not renounce her citizenship in the US and perhaps have dual citizenship in the US and the UK, that Harry and Meghan may decide to go the route of Sophie and Edward and prefer their children not to be HRH? Its possible should they have children that with Meghan keeping her citizenship that their children will also be able to have dual citizenship.

Not sure how that all works. Would Meghan be *required* to renounce her US citizenship or not?
__________________
“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
  #3158  
Old 06-18-2017, 10:59 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,363
I would say it would be advisable for her to do so... commiting to her husband's family and country. And I'm sure that their children will be HRH. (if this marriage ever happens)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3159  
Old 06-18-2017, 11:39 AM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 263
I think she should become a British subject.

Autumn Phillips was from a Commonwealth country, so it was a different situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Thing is that no matter what happens in Scotland, the Balmoral estate, Birkhall and Sandringham are personal holdings and private properties with no connection to the Crown. Charles has always had a deep affinity for Scotland and loves his times spent there and I really don't think that will change. For all we know, he may even decide on Christmas at Windsor Castle if the renovations for Buckingham Palace are still ongoing.

So much in what Charles or William may do as monarch is primarily guesswork and we really won't know until the time comes. We've just lived for so long with the familiarity of the way the Queen does things that any little thing different could signify a "break" in tradition when actually its been the Queen's traditions that we've lived with for so long.
I think that Charles is extremely dependent on staff and winds up doing whatever the more dominant employees think he should be doing.

When he ascends, his court is going to be a giant tangle of handbag-wielding rivals who will do whatever it takes to get him favourable press.

I think Prince Andrew was wise to purchase that chalet.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3160  
Old 06-18-2017, 06:21 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Westfield, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 150
It would be nice to see Princess Alexandra of Kent's children and grandchildren at royal events when Charles is King. It would be good to extend a olive branch to the extended family.
__________________

__________________
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