The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3161  
Old 06-18-2017, 09:53 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,652
Why would an olive branch be necessary. I've never heard that there is discord among the extended family.
__________________

__________________
“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
  #3162  
Old 06-18-2017, 09:57 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfield Bakery View Post
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.
They were there for TTC. What are you talking about?
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #3163  
Old 06-18-2017, 10:33 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,110
How far to we go with the 'extended family' though? Are the children and grandchildren of a person's parents first cousins that close in most families that they are invited to events? I don't think so (in my family even the first cousins don't get invited let alone their children and grandchildren).

The reason we still see some of the Queen's first cousins is that the are exactly that - her first cousins. Note that the Harewood's weren't invited to these events and the late Earl was as much a grandchild of George V as is the Queen but from a daughter and as such not invited to many events - Coronation yes but Trooping as the years went on - no.

That will be the same for Charles and then William and George etc. If every descendant of George V was on that balcony there would be nearly 100, including spouses. Go back another generation to Edward VII and add in quite a few more and then with Victoria there are about 4000, without including spouses - and growing.

There has to be a cut off point and first cousins of the monarch is more than reasonable. Joe Blow Public I suspect believes that every person up there is getting paid by the state rather than only the few who benefit from the Sovereign Grant but impressions are also important and seeing fewer on the balcony will send a message that there are fewer on the 'payroll'. The rest could still enjoy the birthday 'party' if there is one without sending out the message that the majority of the public appear to believe.

Charles gets on very well with Alexandra but he, I suspects, realises that the public don't want to see her children and grandchildren paraded as members of his family - but would rather stick to the core family - those that they can identify (and the DM can't even do that correctly as they can't tell the difference between Beatrice and Eugenie - no wonder they write articles about one and the public applies that same information to the other and treats them as one girl at times).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3164  
Old 06-19-2017, 02:07 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,935
I would suggest the lower numbers have more to do with terrorist attacks and a devastating fire. Many tourists come to London especially at this time of the year just for all the pageantry, Order of the Garter, Trooping of the Colour and Ascot and, of course, The State Opening of Parliament.

I am quite happy with the "Balcony" appearance following the TTOTC. I assume they adjourned for a light lunch and a chance to touch base with the rest of the family. They are celebrating her "Official Birthday".

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rN_KZzxNy...7-Balcony2.jpg

Edited
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #3165  
Old 06-19-2017, 02:25 AM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
How far to we go with the 'extended family' though? Are the children and grandchildren of a person's parents first cousins that close in most families that they are invited to events? I don't think so (in my family even the first cousins don't get invited let alone their children and grandchildren).

The reason we still see some of the Queen's first cousins is that the are exactly that - her first cousins. Note that the Harewood's weren't invited to these events and the late Earl was as much a grandchild of George V as is the Queen but from a daughter and as such not invited to many events - Coronation yes but Trooping as the years went on - no.

That will be the same for Charles and then William and George etc. If every descendant of George V was on that balcony there would be nearly 100, including spouses. Go back another generation to Edward VII and add in quite a few more and then with Victoria there are about 4000, without including spouses - and growing.

There has to be a cut off point and first cousins of the monarch is more than reasonable. Joe Blow Public I suspect believes that every person up there is getting paid by the state rather than only the few who benefit from the Sovereign Grant but impressions are also important and seeing fewer on the balcony will send a message that there are fewer on the 'payroll'. The rest could still enjoy the birthday 'party' if there is one without sending out the message that the majority of the public appear to believe.

Charles gets on very well with Alexandra but he, I suspects, realises that the public don't want to see her children and grandchildren paraded as members of his family - but would rather stick to the core family - those that they can identify (and the DM can't even do that correctly as they can't tell the difference between Beatrice and Eugenie - no wonder they write articles about one and the public applies that same information to the other and treats them as one girl at times).

Zanouska Mowatt has been on the balcony over the years with Alexandra and Alexandra's son James has been there with his wife.

You know who I didn't see on the balcony this weekend, the Chattos and the Linleys.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3166  
Old 07-22-2017, 03:28 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westfield Bakery View Post
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.
what Olive branch? Why is one required IYO?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3167  
Old 11-30-2017, 12:17 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Each one is determined on a case by case basis and is reviewed regularly.

I would suspect that when George, Charlotte and the new baby reach their early 20s, them, like Sophie, Meghan will lose it unless on royal duties as she will be then only be married to a very minor royal - as is Sophie today.
When George and siblings are in their twenties, Meghan will be married to either the only other son or only brother of the monarch. Hardly a minor Royal. Sophie is married to the sovereign's fourth child. Big difference, plus the Wessexes have never been high profile.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3168  
Old 11-30-2017, 12:22 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,349
Harry and Meghan will never be minor royals. I'm not sure even their children (I fully expect them to receive titles) will be since they will be the only cousins the Cambridges have ...and perhaps needed as full time working royals.


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3169  
Old 11-30-2017, 12:28 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 1,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Harry and Meghan will never be minor royals. I'm not sure even their children (I fully expect them to receive titles) will be since they will be the only cousins the Cambridges have ...and perhaps needed as full time working royals.


LaRae
With three children already, I don't think Harry's children will be working royals. And I think Harry and Meghan would prefer them to be private citizens and have the freedom to be whomever they wish.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3170  
Old 11-30-2017, 12:34 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,349
That's assuming that George's siblings will all be working royals. Charlotte could marry and not be full time or a working royal at all.

I have thought that Harry (in the past) might opt out but not after the past 6 months or so. I think after he decided for sure he wanted to remain a full time royal and commit to spending his life doing patronages/charitable works, he's going to accept titles for his children (assuming he has any).


LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3171  
Old 11-30-2017, 12:40 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 1,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
That's assuming that George's siblings will all be working royals. Charlotte could marry and not be full time or a working royal at all.

I have thought that Harry (in the past) might opt out but not after the past 6 months or so. I think after he decided for sure he wanted to remain a full time royal and commit to spending his life doing patronages/charitable works, he's going to accept titles for his children (assuming he has any).


LaRae
I don't doubt that Harry would devote his life to being a full time royal. I think he's really found his purpose. And being that he won't be monarch, it actually allows him to focus on the issues he finds closest to his heart whereas monarchs tend to need a diverse profile.

I'm still not sure about accepting HRH titles for his children. I think Harry might be wary of the attention that his York cousins and get. In a way, I do think the HRH title holds Beatrice and Eugenie back from leading private working lives to their fullest potential while not having the option of working for the Firm. Harry and Meghan might want to protect their children from that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3172  
Old 11-30-2017, 12:49 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,349
I don't think it will be possible for them to protect their children from it simply because of who their parents are. Folks are interested in Harry and now that he's marrying (an American of mixed ethnicity no less) interest will probably increase...let them have kids and they'll be as bad as they have been for the Cambridge children.

So title or not title...they will have to prepare their children for the interest they will be likely to get their entire lives.



LaRae
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3173  
Old 11-30-2017, 01:32 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 6,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
That's assuming that George's siblings will all be working royals. Charlotte could marry and not be full time or a working royal at all.

I have thought that Harry (in the past) might opt out but not after the past 6 months or so. I think after he decided for sure he wanted to remain a full time royal and commit to spending his life doing patronages/charitable works, he's going to accept titles for his children (assuming he has any).


LaRae
As evidenced by Anne and Alexandra, Charlotte getting married certainly doesn't mean she wouldn't or couldn't be a working royal. When William is king, she will be second in line for the throne until George has kids. She is just as likely to be a working royal as her younger sibling is to be. Even if that younger sibling is another boy.

Charlotte if she marries say Mr John Smith, will be HRH The Princess Charlotte, Mrs John Smith. As Eugenie will be when she marries, HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank. Charlotte's husband may be titled or he may be given a title along the way like Antony was.

IMO the streamlining will mean a focus on only children of the sovereign being working. So while Harry and his wife will work, not their kids. George and all his siblings (if they choose) will be working royals, but only George's kids will be. And so on.

Quote:
I don't doubt that Harry would devote his life to being a full time royal. I think he's really found his purpose. And being that he won't be monarch, it actually allows him to focus on the issues he finds closest to his heart whereas monarchs tend to need a diverse profile.
What do you picture as the difference? What in your mind does a 'working royal' do that Harry doesn't?

The majority of the work a working royal does, is charity work. The ceremonial 'royal duties' is a very small part. Harry being a 'full time working royal' simply means picking up the number of duties he is expected to do. His main job is representing the royal family through the odd 'duty' and his charity work.

The majority of Charles' 'full time work' is with his foundation. As well as his ceremonial duties. For Harry, his military patronages like Invictus, and others like Senteble are the same path.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3174  
Old 11-30-2017, 01:41 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 1,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
What do you picture as the difference? What in your mind does a 'working royal' do that Harry doesn't?

The majority of the work a working royal does, is charity work. The ceremonial 'royal duties' is a very small part. Harry being a 'full time working royal' simply means picking up the number of duties he is expected to do. His main job is representing the royal family through the odd 'duty' and his charity work.

The majority of Charles' 'full time work' is with his foundation. As well as his ceremonial duties. For Harry, his military patronages like Invictus, and others like Senteble are the same path.
The difference is that the Queen doesn't seem to have her own specific passion issues. The Royal Foundation, while does have a big umbrella, has some pretty recurring themes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3175  
Old 11-30-2017, 01:49 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 6,933
Didn't answer my question? What are the duties you imagine Harry would be doing if he was a full time working royal????

The queen may not have a specific passion but she has Hundreds of charities she was and is patron of. Even for the queen, serving as patron of charities is a huge part of her job. As queen, like her son, she has a number of royal duties as well.

For the countless other 'full time royals' as in Anne, the Wessexes, Andrew, Gloucesters, Kents, and now the Cambridges, being a 'working royal' is very much having patronages and devoting your time to those. And of course the odd 'royal duty event' like trooping. This is the category that Harry is under. So him working with Invictus and his other charities in no way is in conflict with him being a full time royal, it is part of him being a full time royal.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3176  
Old 11-30-2017, 01:53 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 1,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Didn't answer my question? What are the duties you imagine Harry would be doing if he was a full time working royal????

The queen may not have a specific passion but she has Hundreds of charities she was and is patron of. Even for the queen, serving as patron of charities is a huge part of her job. As queen, like her son, she has a number of royal duties as well.

For the countless other 'full time royals' as in Anne, the Wessexes, Andrew, Gloucesters, Kents, and now the Cambridges, being a 'working royal' is very much having patronages and devoting your time to those. And of course the odd 'royal duty event' like trooping. This is the category that Harry is under. So him working with Invictus and his other charities in no way is in conflict with him being a full time royal, it is part of him being a full time royal.
The answer is the topics that he finds most interesting. Obviously, within some limits that's typical for the royal family.

I'm not sure what you are trying to disagree with me on? I'm just saying he'll be able to have more options to have passion projects as opposed to whoever is the monarch. Your comment about the Queen not having specific passion projects, but patronages just agreed with exactly what I said. I'm sure he'll have other patronages as well, but he can also have passion projects moreso than a monarch.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3177  
Old 11-30-2017, 06:52 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
The difference is that the Queen doesn't seem to have her own specific passion issues. The Royal Foundation, while does have a big umbrella, has some pretty recurring themes.
The Queen has state matters to attend to unlike other members of the family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3178  
Old 11-30-2017, 08:47 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 1,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The Queen has state matters to attend to unlike other members of the family.
I’m not saying it like it’s a bad thing. I’m just noting the difference because there is a different than the type of organization HMQ and future monarchs when they are monarchs have versus a senior royal that isn’t monarch.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3179  
Old 11-30-2017, 12:55 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 765
I realize they will be scaling the working Royals back in the future, but my understanding is that it would not exclude the direct line of the reining Monarch. Since Charles only has two sons, Harry’s children would be titled Prince and princesses and would be expected to be working royals. There is only so much they can do with all their patronage’s and other official duties, traveling as representatives of the UK, etc.. to accomplish it all with just William and his 3 children when he ascends the throne. It just won’t be possible.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3180  
Old 11-30-2017, 01:07 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Norfolk, United States
Posts: 1,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
I realize they will be scaling the working Royals back in the future, but my understanding is that it would not exclude the direct line of the reining Monarch. Since Charles only has two sons, Harry’s children would be titled Prince and princesses and would be expected to be working royals. There is only so much they can do with all their patronage’s and other official duties, traveling as representatives of the UK, etc.. to accomplish it all with just William and his 3 children when he ascends the throne. It just won’t be possible.
Harry's children won't be the mainline just as his cousins aren't really considered mainline royals now. Harry will likely play a more prominent role during Charles' reign and likely early in William's reign than the Queen's younger children individually do now. Obviously because there is only one of him and there are three of them. His children are obviously entitled to HRH status at some point in their lives, if not from the very beginning, unless Charles pass away before the Queen, however I wouldn't be surprised if Harry and Meghan makes the same choice the Wessexes did. Sometimes the HRH is more of a burden.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

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


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
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 03:14 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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