The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #501  
Old 03-23-2011, 09:48 PM
jdcharlie's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: :), United States
Posts: 257
These polls sure are fickle (or inaccurate). LOL. A few months ago it was a different story. I wonder if this abrupt change has been because of the focus of late on Prince Charles as a father, where he has excelled, versus Prince Charles, the philandering spouse.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #502  
Old 03-24-2011, 12:29 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdcharlie View Post
These polls sure are fickle (or inaccurate). LOL. A few months ago it was a different story. I wonder if this abrupt change has been because of the focus of late on Prince Charles as a father, where he has excelled, versus Prince Charles, the philandering spouse.
Married to the equally philandering spouse!

Perhaps Prince William's forthcoming marriage has brought the monarchy to the "general public" attention for the first time in years and the response reflects the reality of what the monarchy is and does as opposed to a pro and anti minority squabbling for years in equally small, partisan "polls".

At the moment the Monarchy, in it's entirety, is on show and under the microscope and it's place is being recognised. The subject poll may well reflect that.
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #503  
Old 03-24-2011, 04:09 AM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,215
The only way to accurately assess the public's opinion of Charles is to ask every single person in the country. Polls will vary according to location, age of respondents, method of polling, even the time of day they conducted it. There hasn't been a major revolt about Charles or a huge outcry for William to replace him or to abolish the monarchy so most people don't seem to object to his becoming king.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #504  
Old 03-24-2011, 04:29 AM
lucien's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,205
The Monarchy under King Charles III?Who knew there were so many clairvoyant kiddo's around that already know it all.

The Monarchy will remain what it is,a Monarchy intact.Unless one is a witch giving her broom a day off,or if you work for the "Sun" and other daily rags,no-one knows how that will develop.But looking back in history,it always continued perfectly but just with another head on the penny & pound.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #505  
Old 03-24-2011, 05:38 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
Who knew there were so many clairvoyant kiddo's around that already know it all.
Then you yourself, are amongst the "clairvoyant kiddo's" as you too cannot factually state that it will remain as is.

Whether probable or not, it is all conjecture at the present time
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #506  
Old 03-28-2011, 12:58 AM
Duchess of Darwin's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 215
Alleged Plans to downsize the Monarchy

Hi

This is my first thread opening

I have heard alot on this forum, about Prince Charles planning to downsize the British Monarchy, when he is King. Some people have claimed that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will be stripped of their HRHs upon marraige, and that Prince Harry's children will not enjoy Princely status I did some reasearch, but I couldn't find anything that went into this much detail.

Has anyone come across anything that says exactly how Charles will downsize the Monarchy? If so, it would be greatly appreciated if you could post a link.

Despite the lack of detail, I have heard it in several places that The Royal Family will be downsized somehow, and given all the rumours going around this very forum, its a worthwhile discussion to have.
Would downsizing the Monarchy a good idea?
If so, what would be the best way to do it?

I have my own view, but I don't want to elabourate on it until the discussion is in full swing, as I don't want to make anyone with differing views feel uncomfortable by starting the thread off with a particular opinion.

I'm glad to be posting on here
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #507  
Old 03-29-2011, 07:18 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
I am not quite sure what you meant by St. Diana but...I was referring to the idea that some people think that Harry might loose his status as HRH. I was saying that I don't agree with that. I will say that I agree with Muriel who said that the HRH status will be decided in the future generations. I do think that Harry will be safe. I think the idea originally started with the notion that only William, his wife, and all of their children should carry the HRH status. Under the current system only his first born would get it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #508  
Old 03-29-2011, 07:52 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,424
I have never heard any suggestion that Harry would lose the HRH but whether his children should ever get it is another thing.

Currently all of William and Harry's children will become HRH when Charles becomes King but if they are going to remove the HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie then it would only be right that Harry's children would also lose it - afterall he will be the second son and they are currently the children of the second son.

Currently only William's eldest son will automatically become HRH but that can change - like George VI did in 1948 when he issued new LPs to allow all of Elizabeth's children to be born with the HRH.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #509  
Old 03-29-2011, 08:09 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
It was an idea floating around on the boards at one point. I guess the problem with losing the HRH title is where do you draw the line. For example: one day William's third child (or even his second) could be deemed unimportant. Do they lose the HRH status? Should it only be the first-born son/daughter of the first-born? Should it be saved for those children's children? This is all assuming that this children will be given titles. After all both William and Harry could pull a Princess Anne and say no thanks. If one of those children ever ascended to the throne they would still be a King/Queen, right? One could say that is the only title that really matters.

I am trying to draw a line somewhere in the family. I guess the second-born children are where the line is getting drawn. Then again the family will probably get smaller so this is a way to do it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #510  
Old 03-29-2011, 09:21 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,424
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the children of the monarch shouldn't be HRH but why should all the grandchildren have it?

Although under the 1917 LPs (the ones currently in force) Louise and James are HRH Prince/Princess they aren't using it. Anne's children were never entitled to it as they are the children of a girl. If it can work for some grandchildren of the monarch why not all except the children of the heir so William's children yes - when Charles becomes King but not Harry's.

Of course if something happens and Harry becomes King then his children would automatically get it.

I would draw the line at the children of the monarch only - and then have children gain it when their parent becomes monarch but others would object to that so the children of the heir perhaps.

If it was the children of the monarch and the children of the heir then Beatrice/Eugenie/Duke of Gloucester/Duke of Kent/Prince Michael of Kent and Princess Alexandra wouldn't have it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #511  
Old 04-06-2011, 10:13 AM
Grandduchess24's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cambridge, United States
Posts: 1,318
What would the monarchy be like under Charles, and what the British people think? Because based on YouTube videos he seems to be a nice guy, but strangely enough the media portrays him as a "mother's boy" or a sort of dunce like in the Simpsons for example.
__________________
" An ugly baby is a very nasty object, and the prettiest is frightful when undressed."
- Queen Victoria
Reply With Quote
  #512  
Old 04-06-2011, 10:35 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandduchess24 View Post
What would the monarchy be like under Charles, and what the British people think? Because based on YouTube videos he seems to be a nice guy, but strangely enough the media portrays him as a "mother's boy" or a sort of dunce like in the Simpsons for example.
Not sure where you got your assessment of the perception of Charles, but he is anything but a mothers boy. If anything, one of the comments one gets to hear is that he is very much a free thinker, and that his relationship with his parents is somewhat distant.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #513  
Old 04-06-2011, 09:06 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Brooklyn, United States
Posts: 162
When Prince Charles Become King.

Like Queen Elizebeth her successors would be "Figure Heads" Prince Charles can express his opinions because he is just a Prince of Wales. Charles could have served his country better had he been a polititan or an elected minister in the government. There are laws and rules that demicratic heads of state has to follow. When Charles becomes king it would be a "horse of a different colour"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #514  
Old 04-12-2011, 05:07 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 6
I personally don't know exactly how Prince Charles will downsize the monarchy, I'm not even sure whether he's planning on doing it but all I know is that I think that it is an excellent notion to downsize the monarchy. Abolishing the monarchy overall is not what I want but a downsize does sound promising. I think that Princely titles should on be bestowed upon the King or Queen's children and no more (Such as grandchildren).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #515  
Old 04-12-2011, 05:32 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,424
Currently only male line grandchildren get the HRH Princely title in addition to the children of the monarch. And of course spouses of males but not females.

To make it gender neutral they would either have to do something like restrict it to the children of the monarch only or actually add to the number by allowing all grandchildren of a monarch (currently that would add 4 officially and 6 unofficially - Louise and James who don't use it as well as Peter and Zara from Princess Anne and David Linley and Sarah Chatto from Princess Margaret - with their spouses would add another 4 as well - ok three at the moment and another one with Mike in July but...)

In time the number will reduce via attrition unless William or Harry have heaps of kids - and as they are relatively keen environmentalists they will probably limit themselves to two or even be really planet friendly and have one each).

Currently there are 14 by birth and another 5, soon to be 6 by marriage. Of the other 8 by birth only two could add by marriage - Harry and Andrew.

I can see Charles limiting the HRH to the children of the monarch and children of the heir but not the children of other children of the monarch (that would mean Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James, Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent, Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra no longer qualifying - whether he would demand the give up the title or something different I don't know but I can see him limiting the number).

So long as a limited number also meant that the extras aren't on the balcony or anything like that - limit those on the balcony to those who are HRH and maybe the people will limit their sniping but when they see 50 people on the balcony they assume that they are all being paid to do nothing and that leads to the negative feelings expressed in the papers etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #516  
Old 04-12-2011, 07:10 AM
Duchess of Darwin's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 215
Thanks for posting.

Sorry I didn't reply sooner. I kept going to the wrong place to check this, and not seeing your comments

As for my opinion, I prefer a larger British Royal Family. I think of it as an extensive network of generosity. Unfortunately, it doesn't go down well to have too many people on the balcony. Even if the civil list were to be abolished completely, people would still pounce on youthful indescretions and say "what have they done to deserve their title?", as has happened to Beatrice and Eugenie. William and Henry misbehaved as well, but most people were willing to forgive them as they are so close to the throne.

This simply wasn't a problem when the Queens cousins were growing up, as the media kept further away.

I would miss the romance of a larger Royal Family alot , but I can see the benifits of a smaller one.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #517  
Old 04-14-2011, 02:11 AM
Anna Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: U.C., United States
Posts: 320
I think people will complain regardless. I do think it would be beneficial for Charles to designate that only his children and grandchildren have the HRH or thonly his children and the heir's children. When you think about the size of the current royal family, it seems a bit excessive to some, however as some have suggested, the royal family will naturally downsize so it may be unnecessary. It all depends on Charles' mood when the time comes. Same with Camilla's title. Just wait and see.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #518  
Old 04-14-2011, 02:36 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,424
If Charles was to say his children and grandchildren it would be unfair on others who are children and grandchilden of a monarch unless some are to lose it when that relationship changes and could you imagine that.

Currently not all grandchildren of the monarch get HRH.

There are currently 10 as male line grandchildren who are eligible to be HRH but there are another 5 grandchildren of a monarch who aren't HRH simply because their royal parent was female.

If Charles was to say all grandchildren then those 5 should be added.

Personally I would prefer to see it limited to the children of the monarch during the reign of the monarch but no grandchildren at all. That way children wouldn't get it until their parent became monarch.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #519  
Old 04-14-2011, 10:51 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
If Charles was to say his children and grandchildren it would be unfair on others who are children and grandchilden of a monarch unless some are to lose it when that relationship changes and could you imagine that.

Currently not all grandchildren of the monarch get HRH.

There are currently 10 as male line grandchildren who are eligible to be HRH but there are another 5 grandchildren of a monarch who aren't HRH simply because their royal parent was female.

If Charles was to say all grandchildren then those 5 should be added.

Personally I would prefer to see it limited to the children of the monarch during the reign of the monarch but no grandchildren at all. That way children wouldn't get it until their parent became monarch.
Agreed. I would also suggest that titles not be stripped from someone, except for good reasons, such as treason, etc. Hence if Prince Charles upon ascending to the Throne were to issue new LPs limiting the HRH to the monarch's children and children of the Heir Apparent, I'd hope he'd leave alone those who already have the titles (such as Prince Andrew's daughters, etc). In other words, grandfather their titles, but don't issue HRH to future grandchildren, etc.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #520  
Old 04-15-2011, 06:14 AM
Duchess of Darwin's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 215
I hope Charles realises that the Royal Family is headed for a smaller size anyway. His daughters in law (two at a time, and lets hope two over all) will be the only spouses of The Queen's Grandchildren who are eligable for HRHs (I can't see James opting for princely status when he turns eighteen), and his Grandchildren (lets say four or five) will be the only great Grandchildren of Her Majesty's who will qualify.

On top of that The Duchess of Kent is retired (and I think the Duke is as well, but if he's not, its likely he will in a few years) and Alexandra, the Michaels of Kent, and The Gloucesters are getting close to retirement as well.

It would be perfectly fine for Charles to change some of the rules, but not at the demotion of any member of the Royal family (which means no stripping of HRHs), and not at the exclusion (from the Royal Family) of Henry's children. Too many people on the balcony is one thing, but too few would make The Monarchy seem like an exclusive elimination game
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british, camilla, charles of wales, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, titles


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
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 327 06-12-2014 06:11 PM
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 283 01-29-2014 09:57 AM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 04:06 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events diana dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:27 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]